Working with the government to suppress stories, covering up election fraud in the ruling party and ruthlessly campaigning against the main US opposition leader, The New York Times has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance. Remembered only in history books as a relic of the Cold War, much like its sister newspaper Pravda of the Soviet Union. The New York Times R.I.P.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and Bill Keller at The New York Times building on Manhattan. Keller was the long time editor in chief of the newspaper and Sulzberger its proprietor. We met at what must have been the 50th floor of the company headquarters, on 8th Avenue. I write company headquarters, instead of newspaper, because this part of the building was accessible only through a separate elevator-system and was strictly off-limits for the regular New York Times reporters. We spoke for about an hour and a half for the film Mediastan that I was shooting at the time, and now in hindsight, I’m both grateful and surprised by how honestly the administrative and real heads of the enterprise described the nature of their work. Grateful, because the degree of openness they exhibited is a rarity in the backrooms of journalism. Surprised, because what they were doing wasn’t journalism, at least not in the sense that I had been taught in journalism school in Sweden. No, the work that Keller and Sulzberger were describing was something entirely different, and as such it was a shame that this part of the building was off-limits to the journalists of their own newspaper. Because, as I would soon realize, the upper levels of the New York Times building was a place where a variety of important political decisions were negotiated and taken. A space, ironically, very far from scrutiny of the public eye.

The walls of the meeting-room were I sat down with Bill Keller and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. were adorned by signed portraits of important people that had visited this off-limits place. The editor at the company proudly explained that this was the “Hall of Fame”, and that The New York Times was like an embassy for important people from across the world. There was also the obligatory centrepiece – I had filmed the same thing so many times in the Middle East and in the Central Asian republics, but I must admit that I was surprised to see it here – at the head of the table was a framed and signed photograph of the president. The handwritten message on it said: “To Arthur- thank you for a memorable editorial board meeting. Barack Obama”.

This off-limits part of the building was not only where the president would sit in on editorial board meetings, it was also the place where Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was received when he successfully negotiated to be removed from “The Axis of Evil” list after 9/11. At that point in time The New York Times was still considered perhaps the most important publication in the world, and what it wrote was thought to have a direct impact on the life and death of nations. Because of this, many powerful people would put a lot of effort and money into gaining preferable coverage from The New York Times. These floors, Bill Keller told me, was where the proprietor and the editors of the newspaper would meet with and negotiate deals with powerful visitors. In retrospect, whatever “deal” that Gaddafi struck with The New York Times, the exonerating article penned by Judith Miller didn’t save his life, nor did it save his nation from the might of the US air force.

Despite the brutal fate that Gaddafi came to face, the assumption that The New York Times was capable of making meaningful deals with governments was not entirely unfounded. Bill Keller spoke of how he successfully negotiated to freeze the NSA warrantless wiretapping-story uncovered by Eric Lichtblau for two years until after the re-election of George W Bush. This top-floor was also where the Iraq WMD evidence was concocted with the help of the Pentagon and handed to reporter Judith Miller to pen, later letting her hang when the wind changed. This, Keller also told me, was where the CIA and State Department officials were invited to take part in daily editorial meetings when State Department Cables were published by WikiLeaks. I would personally witness how this was the place where Sulzberger himself oversaw the re-election coverage of president Obama. And this was much later where the main tax-evaders of the US would make their cases so that the Panama Papers on their tax records would never reach the public eye (which at the time of writing, they have yet to be).

As a Swedish journalist, educated in large part on Anglo-Saxon literature, I had together with many of my peers seen The New York Times as a guiding star in standards of journalism. Its feat in publishing the Pentagon Papers- the proof that the United States had fabricated the reasons for going to war with Vietnam- was something that we read about in school, and it inspired me to want to work in the profession and uncover the dirty deals of my own government. Imagine my surprise when I saw that the very same paper had these special floors, off-limits to journalists, where the dodgiest deals with the dodgiest figures were being brokered, and that the heads of this newspaper were not even embarrassed about it. Rather, quite the contrary, they seemed to gloat.

After meeting with Keller and Sulzberger at The New York Times, I felt a heavy sense of sadness about what I had witnessed. I felt sad for the staff of the newspaper, many of whom had gone through great risks for their profession and their audience. I felt sad for my generation of journalists who had been robbed of a role-model in journalism. And I felt sad for the American readers, many of whom still had no idea of what was happening on the top floors of The New York Times Building on 8th Avenue.

Since the last few months I am however no longer sad about any of this, for during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance. Remembered only in history books as a relic of the Cold War, much like its sister newspaper Pravda of the Soviet Union.

As a Swedish reader of The New York Times, I may be surprised that the paper has ignored election rigging in the governing party of the United States serious enough to cause its top five officials to resign. But it doesn’t really matter, since I can read the source material on it via WikiLeaks. As a foreign journalist I may be surprised that the paper has chosen to downplay the political bribes of the Clinton Foundation, but it makes little difference because the Associated Press has made the investigation available for me to report on. As a citizen of a western democracy I may be surprised that The New York Times so clearly campaigns against Trump and for Clinton, rather than reports on the policy issues of the candidates, but I can ignore this since I can read and listen to what they say themselves, while I can get a variety of more enlightened and entertaining campaigns all over the blogosphere. If I were a US citizen however, I would be more than just surprised.

And this is where The New York Times has lost it. By dropping its veneer and abandoning its self acclaimed standards of journalism, it has sentenced itself into irrelevance. Because even if the newspaper has steadily been outflanked by many blogs when it comes to audience size, it was until recently considered to be an important platform from which the US elites formed their world-view. But a newspaper with such a small reach, that is no longer taken seriously even by the main presidential candidates of its own country, a newspaper that doesn’t abide by the most fundamental journalistic standards, namely publishing rather than hiding newsworthy, correct information, has very little to offer either any powerful people or its own readers. Because even propaganda has to be good, for it to have any value.

The only question that now remains, is how history will remember the journalists of The New York Times. Will they be judged leniently as people that just did their jobs, not knowing what they were doing? Or will they suffer the same fate as the thousands of Soviet journalists who lost their jobs when the charade at their communist mouthpieces ended? I much suspect that it will be the latter. But I also suspect that much like the heads of the Soviet newspapers quickly adapted to the new rules and new rulers of the game while regular journalists were sentenced to life of unemployment, so will Sulzberger and Keller adapt to whatever will come while the staff of The New York Times will be sentenced to their very own “Hall of Shame”, much like already happened to their colleague Judith Miller when her services on propagating for war with Iraq was no longer required.

I enclose as a small eulogy the following email exchange with a couple of editors from The New York Times. The emails are significant if only as examples of how the newspaper stopped living up to the most basic elements of journalism towards the end of its life. In them editors Bruce Headlam and Isvett Verde explain that The New York Times does not correct mistakes, does not grant the right of reply, and does not, as a matter of policy, publish material about its own censorship.

If you have any other documents pertaining to the demise of The New York Times, please email them to me or send them to WikiLeaks. One of these days I will collect them for a proper obituary.

The statement is unsubstantiated and completely false. I expect you to either correct your text asap and publish an excuse, or provide me with the right of reply.

I am looking forward to your response as soon as possible.

Regards‎

Johannes Wahlström

August 9th 2016

From: Bruce Headlam

To: ‪Johannes Wahlström

Mr. Wahlstrom,

I’m an editor in the Opinion section of The New York Times. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

We stand by the characterization in Alex Gibney’s OpEd about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. If you want to send in a letter disputing what Mr. Gibney wrote, I will give it to the Times’ letters editors. They make the final decision on what to run but I will encourage them.

Let me know.

Best,

Bruce Headlam

August 9th 2016

From: Johannes Wahlström

To: Bruce Headlam

Dear Bruce, do you stand by this in regard to myself?

“Johannes Wahlstrom, a Swedish journalist who helped to engineer a vilification campaign against the two women who accused Mr. Assange of sexual assaults”

If so, please substantiate. Or do you consider it good journalistic practice to lie about someone unchallenged?

Johannes

August 10th 2016

From: Bruce Headlam

To: Johannes Wahlström

The paper stands behind Mr. Gibney’s article, including his characterization of you. This article appeared in the Opinion section where writers have more leeway to express their opinion of people and events.

I’m not in the office currently. But I will reach out to Mr. Gibney and to my boss to discuss. In the meantime, let me know if you want to write a letter.

Best,

Bruce Headlam

August 10th 2016

From: Johannes Wahlström

To: Bruce Headlam

Dear Bruce,

The description of myself in your paper is not formulated as an opinion. It is a statement about something that I have allegedly done. But since it is completely unsubstantiated, it is either a mistake or a lie. And since I have informed you that the description is incorrect, and you have made no effort to prove it, I am inclined to see it as malicious. Disseminating lies does not make good journalism. Please correct, or provide me with a right of reply in your op-ed pages! That is surely how journalism is conducted, at least in my book.

Regards

Johannes

August 10th 2016

From: Bruce Headlam

To: Johannes Wahlström

Mr. Wahlstrom,

I can’t guarantee you the right of reply because that’s not how our paper works. As I said, I will talk to Mr. Gibney and to the senior editors here and get back to you. But that is not going to happen this evening.

Best,

Bruce

August 10th 2016

From: Johannes Wahlström

To: Bruce Headlam

Dear Bruce,

Surely you must understand that lying about people is not the way journalism works, either at your paper or any other one.

I expect a reply by tomorrow.

Best

Johannes

August 10th 2016

From: Johannes Wahlström

To: Bruce Headlam

Dear Bruce,

This is from the standards and ethics of your newspaper (I am sure that your employment contract has a reference to this text):

“We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction. We publish corrections in a prominent and consistent location or broadcast time slot. Staff members who plagiarize or who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We do not tolerate such behavior.”

I need to know if you intend to correct the error about myself or if you will provide me with a right of reply. If not, you will bare the full responsibility for betraying the fundamental standards of your own newspaper.

You have until the end of the day to give me an appropriate response, else I will be obliged to take an alternative course of action.

Regards

Johannes

August 10th 2016

From: Bruce Headlam

To: Johannes Wahlström

As I have said, I have spoken with my boss and am awaiting a decision. If he decides we were wrong, we will make a correction. If he decides against a correction, there are others you can reach to at the Times. As you have noted we take accuracy very seriously. I will get you an answer as quickly as I can.

Sent from my iPhone

Bruce Headlam

The New York Times

212-556-5862 (office)

646-416-4556 (cell)

August 11th 2016

From: Bruce Headlam

To: Johannes Wahlström

Dear Mr. Wahlstrom,

We’ve discussed the sentence you objected to in our Opinion piece (“Can We Trust Assange and Wikileaks?” 08/08/16) with both the OpEd editor and with the writer, Alex Gibney. Mr. Gibney’s sources, both inside and outside Wikileaks, described your involvement with Mr. Assange’s defense, including efforts to disparage the alleged victims. We’re confident in these sources and we won’t run a correction.

I understand that isn’t the answer you wanted. If you wish, you can take up the issue with Phil Corbett, our standards editor (standards@nytimes.com) or with the Public Editor (public@nytimes.com) who might decide to look into your complaint.

If you want to write a letter to the Times, please cc me so that I can alert them it is coming and to give it consideration. If you want to submit something to the Opinion pages, you can send a submission to Isvett Verde at isvette@nytimes.com. I’ll alert her that something might be coming.

Best,

Bruce Headlam

August 11th 2016

From: Johannes Wahlström

To: Bruce Headlam

Dear Bruce,

A claim doesn’t become true just because you say so! In what way have I disparaged the alleged victims? Can you name one instance, one “effort”, show one proof!

You cannot, because the allegation is simply not true! And it is your responsibility to substantiate what you chose to publish, you cannot outsource that responsibility to some filmmaker with a grudge.

I will be happy to write an op-ed for your paper about how the state of journalism at amongst others your newspaper has created such an incredible distrust of our common profession, how this together with political censorship and editorial corruption has precipitated organizations such as WikiLeaks. This is what my documentary film “Mediastan” ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3169780/ ) featuring your proprietor Arthur Sulzberger, is about. I will be happy to write in the op-ed how your newspaper has been given access to the Panama-papers (published amongst others by ICIJ and my colleagues at Swedish Television) and has yet chosen not to publish a single sentence from them. I will be happy to write this and much more for your newspaper, but I suspect that you only let certain perspectives that suits your agenda appear- and this will be the main reason for your ultimate demise.

It’s nice to meet you virtually. I just returned from your lovely country last söndag.

If you’d like to present an Opinion piece, please feel free to submit anything to me in Bruce’s absence.

Mvh,

Isvett

August 11th 2016

From: Johannes Wahlström

To: Isvett Verde

Hi Isvett,

thank you for your reply. As you may guess i am less than happy with how your colleagues have responded to my request to correct their error, but if you will be willing to publish an op-ed on the topic that i mentioned that will be a good start (and the start of an important conversation i hope). Please let me know what length your op-ed texts are and if you will have to edit out my mentioning the New York Times refusal to publish the information in the Panama-papers. The latter is important as I do not want to waste my or your time writing a text that you cannot publish due to editorial censorship.

Vänliga hälsningar från Stockholm

Johannes

August 12th 2016

From: Johannes Wahlström

To: Isvett Verde

Hi Isvett,

Will you please reply to my questions: 1. What length does the text need to be? 2. Are you ok with publishing the fact that NYT has access to the Panama Papers but has chosen not to share‎ the information in them with its readers?

They rarely print corrections when caught in a lie, and even attack those speaking the truth by implying they are foreign agents. In reality nearly all major media have become spin machines evidenced by that article’s interesting news item that I read nowhere else:

The MH-17 Case

As an example, MacFarquhar cites the case of the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, claiming “Russia pumped out a dizzying array of theories.” The Times correspondent then asserts as flat fact that “The cloud of stories helped veil the simple truth that poorly trained insurgents had accidentally downed the plane with a missile supplied by Russia.”The Dutch Safety Board’s reconstruction of where it believed the missile exploded near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. But, according to official investigations that have been underway for more than two years, MacFarquhar’s claim is not “the simple truth,” as he put it. Last year’s report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people.Indeed, the DSB’s report included a statement by Dutch intelligence (reflecting NATO’s intelligence data) that the only powerful anti-aircraft-missile systems in eastern Ukraine on that day – capable of hitting MH-17 at 33,000 feet – were under the control of the Ukrainian military. (Though an official document, this Dutch intelligence report has never been mentioned by The New York Times, presumably because it conflicts with the favored Russia-did-it narrative.)

The problem with accusing the Ukrainians of having shot down MH-17 is found in the wreckage. The type of pellet that did the damage is not found in the version of the Buk missile in the possession of the Ukrainians. Only the newer version, owned only by the Russians, have the type of pellet that did the damage.

Russia shot down MH-17. Russian troops are known to be in eastern Ukraine operating heavy weapons. Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas and a lot of the artillery fire that has been aimed at the Ukrainians has come from Russian territory.

NYT has been fabricating stories as long as it exists to assist USA government engineer regime changes and colour revolutions, and wage reckless wars on the fabricated allegations around the world, as well as white wash American war crimes. NYT is the core of the Western black information network to spread disinformation and misinformation for the American conquest of global full spectrum dominance via organised violence and committing crime against humanity.

It is puzzling why the NYT has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance because it works with the government to suppress stories, covering up election fraud in the ruling party and ruthlessly campaigning against the main US opposition leader Donald Trump while it has been doing the same unscrupulous things since its existence? Is it because the author's sense of justice is selective, and he feels the American is exceptional, injustice applies to people not American does not count?

This is aligned with what professor Stephen F. Cohen, (an esteemed academic on all things Russian) claimed about the downing of Flight 17. He said there was no evidence that the plane had been shot down by Russians and claims by Washington to suggest otherwise were counter-factual.

The professor also speculated the new "cold war" was more about NATO expansion than about human rights.

Cohen is published regularly in The Nation and is a frequent guest on the John Batchelor radio show. He has spoken out on the tragic state of affairs in the Ukraine for years and America's destructive role in it.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns, I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.

Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence of millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as “black and white“), an inflated concern for Muslim sensitivities (“anti-Islamaphobia”), and “immigration” (and they always called illegal aliens “undocumented” immigrants and had all of these stories about families where a parent “migrated” years ago, left behind children who “migrated” separately years later, had a spouse who also “migrated” subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how could anyone now be penalized or deported.

Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the below:

Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism? Even when Blacks or Latinos are “disproportionately” affected, why the seemingly immediate jump to the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed “exploitation?” Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue? Whatever the racial percentages, economic inequity and “exploitation” ultimately affects poor and working class people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and economic disparities as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers by race rather than by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than unites. The NY Times seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto “All The News That Is Fit To Be Racialized.”

Going a little farther back, let's not forget good ol' Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage extolling the virtues of that progressive utopia, the USSR, and covering up the Holodomor as it was taking place. His picture, of course, still hangs in a place of honor at the NYT with their other Pulitzer Prize winners.

I forwarded this article to a left-leaning friend and your comment is the kind of crap that will turn him off to the article and the website immediately. Think about what reaches more people and what doesn't.

Equating NYT aka “JYT” with Pravda is wrong. While Pravda propagated Moscow propaganda for Soviet communist rulers – NYT writes all its news concerning the Middle East by obeying Israel’s GAG Order, as it admitted in April 2014.

On October 8, 2015, Rick Gladstone, Jewish York Times foreign editor, repeated Israel’s propaganda lie about Islam’s third most sacred worship place, Al-Aqsa Mosque built on top of the so-called “Temple Mount”.

“The question, which many books and scholarly treaties have never definitively answered, is the 37-acre site, home to Islam’s sacred Dome of Rock shrine and Al-Aqsa Mosque, was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both since gone.”

Even though Gladstone amended his original article after he was ridiculed and insulted by former Israeli jail-guard Jeffrey Goldberg, Liel Leibvitz, Jeremy Burton, etc. by adding “Temple Mount” after “37-acre” – it still doesn’t meet the historical and religious facts. For example, calling the two temples destroyed by Babylonian and Titus, as “Jewish temples” is ridiculous. Israeli historian Dr. Shlomo Sand has claimed that “Jews were invented only a century ago.”

Islam’s sacred building on the hilltop is Al-Aqsa Mosque and not the shiny Dome of Rock. Al-Aqsa Mosque was built originally by Caliph Abd al-Malik of Umayyad dynasty in 890 CE on the spot from where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) began his journey (Miraj) to have conversation with the Mighty Allah. Al-Aqsa Mosque expansion was done by Ottoman Sultans. Currently, it can hold nearly 3000 worshippers.

Caliph Abd al-Malik also built a separate structure to enclose a large piece of rock which according to Islamic traditions was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to embark on Buraq (Heavenly creature that looked like a horse). The structure also covers a small cave where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said to have meeting with prophet Abraham. A large dome, originally covered with gold-plates, was installed on top of the structure by Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi after he captured Jerusalem from the Franks (crusaders), who used Al-Aqsa Mosque as a palace in the 1100s.

The Dome of Rock has never been used as a mosque. The five daily prayers have never been conducted inside the Dome of Rock. It’s a sort of historical museum. However, visitors, including myself, have used it to be part of prayer lead by an imam inside Al-Aqsa Mosque next door.

Rick Gladstone didn’t mention the small Umar Mosque built by Arab Muslims when they took control of Jerusalem city in 638 CE under the command of Caliph Umer bin al-Khattab (as) after cleaning the hilltop which had been used a garbage dump by both Romans and Christian Franks.

Rick Gladstone also lied that no archeological work had been conducted of the hilltop, which is under the control of Jordanian ‘royals’.

American archaeologist and author, Professor Dr. Ernest L. Martin (1932-2002) had conducted archaeology work in East Jerusalem. In his controversial book ‘The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot’, published in 1999 – Dr. Martin claimed that Muslim sacred places, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of Rock are not built on top of the Temple Mount ruins.

"On October 8, 2015, Rick Gladstone, Jewish York Times foreign editor, repeated Israel’s propaganda lie about Islam’s third most sacred worship place, Al-Aqsa Mosque built on top of the so-called “Temple Mount”."

“The question, which many books and scholarly treaties have never definitively answered, is the 37-acre site, home to Islam’s sacred Dome of Rock shrine and Al-Aqsa Mosque, was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both since gone.”

Now I see that the Hindoo saffronites and their ideological pals the Zionists have been comparing notes and strategising their "benevolant" machinations together.

For those who haven't a clue what I mean, refer to Babri Masjid, Ayodhya.

They rarely print corrections when caught in a lie, and even attack those speaking the truth by implying they are foreign agents. In reality nearly all major media have become spin machines evidenced by that article's interesting news item that I read nowhere else:

The MH-17 Case

As an example, MacFarquhar cites the case of the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, claiming “Russia pumped out a dizzying array of theories.” The Times correspondent then asserts as flat fact that “The cloud of stories helped veil the simple truth that poorly trained insurgents had accidentally downed the plane with a missile supplied by Russia.”The Dutch Safety Board’s reconstruction of where it believed the missile exploded near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. But, according to official investigations that have been underway for more than two years, MacFarquhar’s claim is not “the simple truth,” as he put it. Last year’s report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people.Indeed, the DSB’s report included a statement by Dutch intelligence (reflecting NATO’s intelligence data) that the only powerful anti-aircraft-missile systems in eastern Ukraine on that day – capable of hitting MH-17 at 33,000 feet – were under the control of the Ukrainian military. (Though an official document, this Dutch intelligence report has never been mentioned by The New York Times, presumably because it conflicts with the favored Russia-did-it narrative.)

The problem with accusing the Ukrainians of having shot down MH-17 is found in the wreckage. The type of pellet that did the damage is not found in the version of the Buk missile in the possession of the Ukrainians. Only the newer version, owned only by the Russians, have the type of pellet that did the damage.

Russia shot down MH-17. Russian troops are known to be in eastern Ukraine operating heavy weapons. Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas and a lot of the artillery fire that has been aimed at the Ukrainians has come from Russian territory.

Have you any hands on knowledge of the wreckage or are you simply repeating what's come out of the main street news, (propaganda) Russian troops in the Ukraine any first hand knowledge or simply repeating artical's out of the main street news (propaganda) looks to me that you simply are the main street news always spreading propaganda.!!!

If you are going to make categorical assertions of an obscure fact, i.e., concerning the type of pellet that allegedly punctured the skin of MH-17, you really need to give a supporting reference or a link to an authoritative source if you wish your comment to be taken as a useful contribution to the discussion.

You habitually accuse the UNZ Review readers in "swallowing Putin propaganda" when you asked to provide proofs for your cavalier Russophobic statements. In case you have not noticed yet, UNZ Review does not publish Eliot Higgins (and other experts in selling ladies underwear), but prefers to deal with the serious thinkers and professionals.

No one had to concoct any “evidence ” of WMD in Iraq. We found exactly what we knew they had. The New York Slimes isn’t much more than a broadsheet gossip rag these days, but you give them too much credit for true intelligence.

Every morning, I skim the headlines of the New Joke Times for my daily dose of humor. The only articles I bother clicking on these days – as with the BBC – appear in the Sports section. The recent profile on Kyrgios was amusing.
- It is unfortunate that the NYT and especially, the BBC are still taken quite seriously in the developing world.

The problem with accusing the Ukrainians of having shot down MH-17 is found in the wreckage. The type of pellet that did the damage is not found in the version of the Buk missile in the possession of the Ukrainians. Only the newer version, owned only by the Russians, have the type of pellet that did the damage.

Russia shot down MH-17. Russian troops are known to be in eastern Ukraine operating heavy weapons. Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas and a lot of the artillery fire that has been aimed at the Ukrainians has come from Russian territory.

You've swallowed a load of Putinist propaganda.

Have you any hands on knowledge of the wreckage or are you simply repeating what’s come out of the main street news, (propaganda) Russian troops in the Ukraine any first hand knowledge or simply repeating artical’s out of the main street news (propaganda) looks to me that you simply are the main street news always spreading propaganda.!!!

I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don’t bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

Has this always been the case … or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I’m 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM.

I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie back in 1966. My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up man.
The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic Harper's etc.

I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical non profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people

Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly anti White. I realized that just out of college.

The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti black rioters than the Times.

How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally hate Whites?

Both the NY Times and the Washington Post (and other newspapers) were certainly in the pocket of FDR and the pro-war intelligence services of both the US and of Britain since at least the late 1930s. They happily slandered any and all isolationists and planted false stories to manipulate the public just as they have done for the intervening 75 years. They are and have been for decades little more than a mouthpiece for the ruling elite. Let us hope this election finishes them off.

You can also try Dennis Michael Lynch for real news. I trust him and no longer listen to the stuff that comes from any mainstream media. Dennis Michael Lynch is on FB, and is starting his own news media after leaving MSM for not confirming to their lives and propaganda.

I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families.

We must delve into the nature of news and the origin of newspapers. For millennia news was spread verbally, face to face, and that looked more like gossips. Then the printing technique appeared and then some guy decided to print and disseminate those gossips, half-truth, half-lie. Soon many started their own newspapers and began to hire informants and spies, later known as journalists. Finally, newspapers began printing not only information reports, but opinion essays, thus political journalism was born. By the American and French Revolutions newspapers became the ultimate tools for political propaganda (originally a religious term). Finally the nature of mass media was shaped during the Crimean War (1853-56). Learn how British newspapers covered the war back then and later Russia during the Great Game, it is very revealing; so many parallels with today. Since then, more than for the past 150 years, hardly anything has changed. The goal of newspapers is not only to report but mainly to manipulate public opinion and influence politics and decision making. They are not meant to disseminate the truth. This is some sort of illusion, wishful thinking that journalism only makes truth. I myself wish it were thus, but. The only difference back then was that everybody could open and issue a newspaper and there might be many agendas depending on who the owner of a newspaper was. Now every main informational outlet is influenced, controlled or directly owned by big corporations and globalist crooks. But even local newspapers, like of a county or a city, have sure their own agenda and propaganda. I saw myself how a local newspaper wrote articles openly advertising one local businessman and blackening the other (though the newspaper would never acknowledge they had been bought, but it was so blatantly obvious).

“Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

"Impossible and laughable tales of 6mil deaths and gas chambers"? Dude, have you not been to any concentration camps? Have you not watched FOOTAGE of those same concentration camps dumping hundreds of bodies of it's victims into mass graves? Or seen pictures of The Angel of Death's work?! Turning frickin people into soap?! Or what about the hundreds of thousands of people still alive today (ALL AROUND THE WORLD) who could tell you their first hand experience of the camps, how many of their family members died and still show you their tattoo?! Not just Jews, but gays, gypsies and Christians were sent to these camps as well!

Anyone who "believes" the Holocaust wasn't real is LITERALLY the same as someone who believes their birth wasn't real.
Doesn't matter if mom and dad recount in detail the day mom went into 8hr labor and breached! Doesn't matter if the hospital took a baby picture while still in the hospital! Doesn't matter if there is old video footage of you coming home to a welcome party of 50 family and friends! Doesn't matter if you have a birth certificate signed by the doctor who delivered you and one of the nurses! Doesn't matter if that doctor is still alive today and recalls the event rather clearly! Doesn't matter if the hospital has all those pesky records of your mother checking in and you both checking out! Doesn't matter if you have an older sibling who remembers the day you came home from the hospital!
Why doesn't it matter?
Because all those "stories" your mom, dad, sibling, doctor, nurse, family, friends tell and those pictures and videos of you as a baby are all SO LAUGHABLE and IMPOSSIBLE! You were born by your parents on your birthdate?! Wow, what a crock! You weren't even there -supposedly- for half of it!
Can you even hear yourself Wally?

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

– David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.

nice post. thanks.
i read a long article on the council of foreign relations that would interest you about 3 weeks ago. for the life of me, i can't remember the author or even the site. but, it definitely isn't a fringe site or a pajama blogger.
i believe the group was established in the 1920's. the piece stated that every ex-secretary of state, and all but one ex-secretary of defense has joined since the organization's founding.
the council on foreign relations is also a proponent of a new world order. i suppose, the trilateral commission is too.
megalomaniacs are always with us. but attempting to manipulate & control a world population is akin to herding cats.
but these three nwo groups have influence.

“during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance.”

Actually, it abandoned all that a very long time ago, but better to notice late then never, I suppose.

I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM.

The media is owned by four corporations.

This election cycle has completely exposed any pretense of “journalism.” I don’t know if I should even trust their reporting on the weather anymore.

For what it’s worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

That doesn’t really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

One thing I’ve noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don’t like to receive critical comments. Maybe it’s a house rule that they can’t reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it’s no problem), but there’s recently been a PC “safe space” type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times – apparently).

That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100′s of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000′s. I’ve sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the “safe space” crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience – basically a good party.

Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn’t quite there, but that’s maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it’s a fine publication).

You want to see serious heavy duty censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively anti-trump site "the american cuck....er conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity, they never fail to censor any comment even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey.....all with a patina of intellectual superiority. One of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of crap to 300 lb starving afros and white trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana.

I really love the Unz commenting system. The ability to follow a thread through linking, and to trace the history of any commenter, is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.

I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features.

The CBC.ca website always had a commenting system that was at least worthwhile despite some annoying censorship and a less-than-optimal format. Within two weeks of Justin Trudeau's election, the censorship hammer came down hard and now anyone interested in learning or offering truths has no business visiting the site. Its downright scary.

Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren’t for cash infusions from Mexican criminal (and World’s riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending the “right” of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country.

It's amazing what roles foreigners play in our national life. We seem to lap it up.

A digression on remittances: If we imposed a hefty tax on them I bet we'd see a whole lot of self-deportation. Punitive taxation on our own citizens is perfectly OK, such as with cigarettes, so there's no moral objection to collecting punitive income, Medicare, and employment taxes on the back end.

Of course, the official position is that only Bureau of Prisons buses and RR cattle cars can be used to deport people, who must be rounded up Evian Gonzalez-style.

I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM.

I’m a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie back in 1966. My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up man.
The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped believing in anything published in a newspaper or “quality” magazine like Atlantic, New Republic Harper’s etc.

I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical non profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don’t really investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people

Of course I am White. From 1960 on the “quality” newspapers and magazines have been solidly anti White. I realized that just out of college.

The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti black rioters than the Times.

How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally hate Whites?

I haven’t seen a NYT newspaper in decades. I know the NYT has a presence on the Internet, but last I checked (years ago) their archives (the only thing the NYT retains of value) are membership only. The NYT might still be a valuable record of historical events that occurred generations past, but most everything I’m looking for has already been extracted and is publicly available elsewhere. It’s simply easier to do a Google search than find it on the NYT website (only to discover that to view it requires a subscription). If the link has a NYT in it, I go on to the next.

When it comes to contemporary news, the last place I would look is the NYT. If I want to hear official lies for myself, then cable TV is the only possible source. The 24/7 news cycle can be recorded and the misstatements extracted later. A few hours later and the news has been purged of the offense, all references removed or left dangling. The NYT is simply not useful to catch glimpses of real events as they happen.

Finally, when it comes to analysis the NYT has, as you say, deliberately made itself more and more irrelevant. Commentary and analysis is a dime a dozen on the Internet, and almost all of it is of a higher quality than what the NYT prints. The NYT attacks only official enemies, and maintains a passionless hands-off attitude towards the crimes of their powerful allies. Now, why would I bother to read that? My time is valuable and the Internet is full of insightful analysis. Life is too short to read propaganda.

Equating NYT aka "JYT" with Pravda is wrong. While Pravda propagated Moscow propaganda for Soviet communist rulers - NYT writes all its news concerning the Middle East by obeying Israel's GAG Order, as it admitted in April 2014.

On October 8, 2015, Rick Gladstone, Jewish York Times foreign editor, repeated Israel’s propaganda lie about Islam’s third most sacred worship place, Al-Aqsa Mosque built on top of the so-called “Temple Mount”.

“The question, which many books and scholarly treaties have never definitively answered, is the 37-acre site, home to Islam’s sacred Dome of Rock shrine and Al-Aqsa Mosque, was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both since gone.”

Even though Gladstone amended his original article after he was ridiculed and insulted by former Israeli jail-guard Jeffrey Goldberg, Liel Leibvitz, Jeremy Burton, etc. by adding “Temple Mount” after “37-acre” – it still doesn’t meet the historical and religious facts. For example, calling the two temples destroyed by Babylonian and Titus, as “Jewish temples” is ridiculous. Israeli historian Dr. Shlomo Sand has claimed that “Jews were invented only a century ago.”

Islam’s sacred building on the hilltop is Al-Aqsa Mosque and not the shiny Dome of Rock. Al-Aqsa Mosque was built originally by Caliph Abd al-Malik of Umayyad dynasty in 890 CE on the spot from where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) began his journey (Miraj) to have conversation with the Mighty Allah. Al-Aqsa Mosque expansion was done by Ottoman Sultans. Currently, it can hold nearly 3000 worshippers.

Caliph Abd al-Malik also built a separate structure to enclose a large piece of rock which according to Islamic traditions was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to embark on Buraq (Heavenly creature that looked like a horse). The structure also covers a small cave where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said to have meeting with prophet Abraham. A large dome, originally covered with gold-plates, was installed on top of the structure by Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi after he captured Jerusalem from the Franks (crusaders), who used Al-Aqsa Mosque as a palace in the 1100s.

The Dome of Rock has never been used as a mosque. The five daily prayers have never been conducted inside the Dome of Rock. It’s a sort of historical museum. However, visitors, including myself, have used it to be part of prayer lead by an imam inside Al-Aqsa Mosque next door.

Rick Gladstone didn’t mention the small Umar Mosque built by Arab Muslims when they took control of Jerusalem city in 638 CE under the command of Caliph Umer bin al-Khattab (as) after cleaning the hilltop which had been used a garbage dump by both Romans and Christian Franks.

Rick Gladstone also lied that no archeological work had been conducted of the hilltop, which is under the control of Jordanian ‘royals’.

American archaeologist and author, Professor Dr. Ernest L. Martin (1932-2002) had conducted archaeology work in East Jerusalem. In his controversial book ‘The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot’, published in 1999 – Dr. Martin claimed that Muslim sacred places, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of Rock are not built on top of the Temple Mount ruins.

https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/15/nyt-lies-about-al-aqsa-mosque/

“On October 8, 2015, Rick Gladstone, Jewish York Times foreign editor, repeated Israel’s propaganda lie about Islam’s third most sacred worship place, Al-Aqsa Mosque built on top of the so-called “Temple Mount”.”

“The question, which many books and scholarly treaties have never definitively answered, is the 37-acre site, home to Islam’s sacred Dome of Rock shrine and Al-Aqsa Mosque, was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both since gone.”

Now I see that the Hindoo saffronites and their ideological pals the Zionists have been comparing notes and strategising their “benevolant” machinations together.

For those who haven’t a clue what I mean, refer to Babri Masjid, Ayodhya.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.

nice post. thanks.
i read a long article on the council of foreign relations that would interest you about 3 weeks ago. for the life of me, i can’t remember the author or even the site. but, it definitely isn’t a fringe site or a pajama blogger.
i believe the group was established in the 1920′s. the piece stated that every ex-secretary of state, and all but one ex-secretary of defense has joined since the organization’s founding.
the council on foreign relations is also a proponent of a new world order. i suppose, the trilateral commission is too.
megalomaniacs are always with us. but attempting to manipulate & control a world population is akin to herding cats.
but these three nwo groups have influence.

I've got some books on the Council on Foreign Relations and a few on the Trilateral Commission...on the surface they look completely innocuous - beneficial even - but when you scratch away the fancy veneer and scrutinize their activities you quickly learn that they are VERY shady and sinister organizations indeed!

You said: "megalomaniacs are always with us." True enough...but now we've got the power of the internets to keep an eye on them!

Nicely done. The NY Times was once regarded as America’s premier News Outlet. It, was never pristine, but one could squeeze some facts out of its pages.

Today, the Rag is excruciatingly Boring, (which is usually a by-product of propaganda organs).

The Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, and thousands of other print and informational medias, have declined into mind numbing and uninformative outlets.

It is one thing for a pretend Newspaper, such as the NYT to support imperialism, and exploitation, and the rule of the Oligarchs; the NYT and the others have ever been that. But it is another for them to become (decline into), mere propaganda outlets for Government controlling Oligarchs.

Some say, “The truth will make us free.” Unfortunately, the Truth is often, and lately, increasingly Buried. It is the truth, our Liberties, that have received an Obituary. Orwell believed that sad event happened in 1984, or, certainly, by then. I believe the obituary began, definitively, on November 22, 1963, and expanded from there.

I wholeheartedly agree with the main argument of the NY Times having lost all vestiges of journalistic integrity and ethical standards. They have ceased to be anything more than a combination; mouthpiece, pr flak and investigative attack dogs for the extended Clinton crime family and their friends on the left.

That said, it’s hard to see this author’s work to not be his response to the Times’s articles (which he includes here), which have criticized him.

Whether valid criticism or not, it obviously is the source of Johannes Wahlstrom ‘s venom and it’s impossible to not wonder how much of his subsequent tirade against the Times is a direct result of that animus.

Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren't for cash infusions from Mexican criminal (and World's riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending the "right" of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country.

It’s amazing what roles foreigners play in our national life. We seem to lap it up.

A digression on remittances: If we imposed a hefty tax on them I bet we’d see a whole lot of self-deportation. Punitive taxation on our own citizens is perfectly OK, such as with cigarettes, so there’s no moral objection to collecting punitive income, Medicare, and employment taxes on the back end.

Of course, the official position is that only Bureau of Prisons buses and RR cattle cars can be used to deport people, who must be rounded up Evian Gonzalez-style.

For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space" type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).

That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.

Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication).

You want to see serious heavy duty censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively anti-trump site “the american cuck….er conservative”. In between displaying saintly religiosity, they never fail to censor any comment even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey…..all with a patina of intellectual superiority. One of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of crap to 300 lb starving afros and white trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana.

Yes, I was (apparently) banned from commenting on that site for suggesting that several of their bloggers (some regular contributors, some not) seemed to favor a certain religious denomination as Conservatism's official religion. Didn't seem all that controversial to me. Hats off to Ron Unz for not censoring comments.

The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position. I had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles and opinion pieces. You’re are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces. For a while, my comments were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I could not make comments or even access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted them and was told that my access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.
I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me. I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis. I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary opinions would not appear.
I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if you follow the line they set.

Very much doubt they'd do that. Not that they have principles. Would take too much time. They simply don't print the comment. I have maybe one in ten printed, I've stopped wondering why. I think they have some fifth columnists there, to be honest, some comments I make are so innocuous, so un-inflammatory but they still don't get printed, convinced it's payback for all my anti-Israel comments, most of which, natch, but not all, don't get published.

When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won’t matter how many lies they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition.

They’ve followed their mission-plan well. Now the BIG action is with the Mossad boys to implement the war the NYT has so feverishly set up.

But, like a bad script waiting for the Production Dept. to catch up, they’ve run their course, in more ways than their tiny brains can even imagine.

Of course,they are zions arm in America,completely Jewish owned and completely full of shite.
A bunch of mole traitors,all in on divide and conquer,and hopefully there are still enough patriots left on Nov.8 to send them a number 1 message.
Never has there been such outright lying concerning a potential POTUS,DT,and his message of America First is the last thing these monsters want,as their reign of terror ends.
Wouldn't that be something?!

The biggest story that Regime Media has failed to report is this, ‘the U.S. govt is supporting Al Qaeda aligned rebels in Syria against the Assad govt’. This has been true since at least 2013 and likely true since 2012 yet it has never been reported.

Instead, Regime Media has merely repeated the position of the U.S. State Dept. without any challenge whatsoever. What happened to the press that was suspicious of the govt narrative that existed during the Vietnam War? It evaporated in Iraq 2002 and is now just a mouthpiece of the govt. Sources exist other than the U.S. State Dept. Anyone who pays attention can easily see where our narrative falls apart.

I won’t go into details over all of the false narratives. I chose the most important example. If I sound bitter, it is because I am.

DISGUSTING ! Its becoming very obvious that the so called “mainstream” media is, IN FACT, protecting this or that Agenda…..NO WONDER people are turning to alternative media for RELYABLE information…..WHAT DISGUSTING PIECES OF SHIT ! The New York Time is part of TIME MAgazine? I am subscriber, I can tell you know….I WAS a subscrever….FUCK THEM !!

The decline in standards in the NYT this year has been astonishing. It is often impossible to tell if an article is in the NYT or clickbait Huffington Post if you are just offered a headline. Facts used have gone from being massaged to being outright false. What is weirder is that they don’t care if what they are saying is provably false.

I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM.

Both the NY Times and the Washington Post (and other newspapers) were certainly in the pocket of FDR and the pro-war intelligence services of both the US and of Britain since at least the late 1930s. They happily slandered any and all isolationists and planted false stories to manipulate the public just as they have done for the intervening 75 years. They are and have been for decades little more than a mouthpiece for the ruling elite. Let us hope this election finishes them off.

The Holodomor victims', and their few alive descendants' average IQ is much less than 110-115.

You know, it's people... how are they called?... of no consequence. Losers, of which less than 50% write books or hold respectable amounts of respectably respectable companie' shares.

I really, really can't see why we should think of the 10+ million people massacred in the Holodomor when none of their descendants has been Financial Times', WSJ's, or even The Economist's editor-in-chief.

You know, I was there for the World Economic Forum in Davos the last time, and saw no people related with the Holodomor.

We are speaking of real nobodies. None of them in the board of any of the Big Three credit rating agencies.

I think we should talk of victims worthy of being remembered, who make themselves noticed by the world, like Hollywood, school programs all over the West, mainstream and niche media all over the West, have done for some a decade and seem to be going to keep doing, in the name, needless to say, of solidarity, equality, and — what a curious name — justice.

We had 6 million, or 6-million's worth of victims of the people of divine nature, like wise man Jay Michaelson has tried to explain; no time or reasons to mind much if others, "undereducated" and "losers" were massacred.

They, and the circa 50-10 million people massacred by communism across the East, wouldn't have founded Google and Facebook even if they had survived. That's why the expression of no consequence.

Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns, I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.

Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence of millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as “black and white“), an inflated concern for Muslim sensitivities (“anti-Islamaphobia”), and “immigration” (and they always called illegal aliens “undocumented” immigrants and had all of these stories about families where a parent “migrated” years ago, left behind children who “migrated” separately years later, had a spouse who also “migrated” subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how could anyone now be penalized or deported.

Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the below:

Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism? Even when Blacks or Latinos are "disproportionately" affected, why the seemingly immediate jump to the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed “exploitation?” Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue? Whatever the racial percentages, economic inequity and "exploitation" ultimately affects poor and working class people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and economic disparities as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers by race rather than by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than unites. The NY Times seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto "All The News That Is Fit To Be Racialized."

Check out the ~5x increase in the prevalence of the word “racism” in NYT articles between 2011 and 2016:

Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible governmentan old friend of mine, Bernays, said.

Contemporarily, % of people who "trust the media" has dropped by 8% from 2015 to 2016.

Personally, I believe the NYT has always been a voice, if not the voice, of the actual powers. There was a time, a bit more than a century ago, when mob lynching of unruly immigrants "unfairly" acquitted used to be commended. It was commended because that was what the actual powers, and also the culture prevailing at the time, wanted.

In the lapse of few days I read a Mr. Cohen say the USA should involve themselves harder in fighting to bring freedom in Syria and the Ukraine and oppose freedom-denying Russia, and noticed the previously really free comments sectionhad been turned into an instrument of demagoguery, under the editors' strict control, a lifeless extension of the commented pieces.
I won't be able to go back to read the NYT after that.

Interesting that the NY Times has a publicly accessible tool that allows one to graph the newspaper’s fixation on certain topics. I applied the term “transgender,” those mostly men (males) identifying as women and demanding access to previously women only spaces (bathrooms and locker and shower rooms), and found an almost identical rocket ship rise in the newspaper’s fixation on transgenders beginning in 2010-2011 (parallel with and to almost the same extreme heights as the words “racist” and “racism“).

Given the downward trend of using the words racist and racism until the dramatic 5X up tick in 2011, that you noted, I wonder what explains the timing of the change.

Perhaps the NY Times owners’ appointment of New Orleans born African-American / Creole / black journalist Dean Baquet as Managing Editor in September 2011 and his promotion to Executive Editor on May 14, 2014 signaled their intent to dramatically escalate the racial focus. Carlos Slim also bought into the NY Times in 2008 and increased his holdings in 2012.

The on-line word tracing tool, Google N-Gram Viewer displays a similar dramatic recent rise in the appearance of words like racism and racist and transgender in books. Like the Chronicle.NYTLABS tool that you site, the N-Gram Viewer visually graphs the percent of books using selected words or phrases over a selected time period from the 25 million books scanned and digitized by Google. You can track the use of words in multiple languages from as early as 1700 up to 2009.

Found at: https://books.google.com/ngrams

Sadly, not just the NY Times has been racialized and transgenderized and social warriorized.

The problem with accusing the Ukrainians of having shot down MH-17 is found in the wreckage. The type of pellet that did the damage is not found in the version of the Buk missile in the possession of the Ukrainians. Only the newer version, owned only by the Russians, have the type of pellet that did the damage.

Russia shot down MH-17. Russian troops are known to be in eastern Ukraine operating heavy weapons. Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas and a lot of the artillery fire that has been aimed at the Ukrainians has come from Russian territory.

You've swallowed a load of Putinist propaganda.

If you are going to make categorical assertions of an obscure fact, i.e., concerning the type of pellet that allegedly punctured the skin of MH-17, you really need to give a supporting reference or a link to an authoritative source if you wish your comment to be taken as a useful contribution to the discussion.

nice post. thanks.
i read a long article on the council of foreign relations that would interest you about 3 weeks ago. for the life of me, i can't remember the author or even the site. but, it definitely isn't a fringe site or a pajama blogger.
i believe the group was established in the 1920's. the piece stated that every ex-secretary of state, and all but one ex-secretary of defense has joined since the organization's founding.
the council on foreign relations is also a proponent of a new world order. i suppose, the trilateral commission is too.
megalomaniacs are always with us. but attempting to manipulate & control a world population is akin to herding cats.
but these three nwo groups have influence.

Hey, Larry!

I’ve got some books on the Council on Foreign Relations and a few on the Trilateral Commission…on the surface they look completely innocuous – beneficial even – but when you scratch away the fancy veneer and scrutinize their activities you quickly learn that they are VERY shady and sinister organizations indeed!

You said: “megalomaniacs are always with us.” True enough…but now we’ve got the power of the internets to keep an eye on them!

Check out the ~5x increase in the prevalence of the word "racism" in NYT articles between 2011 and 2016:
http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=racism
"racist" is similar.

Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible governmentan old friend of mine, Bernays, said.

Contemporarily, % of people who “trust the media” has dropped by 8% from 2015 to 2016.

Personally, I believe the NYT has always been a voice, if not the voice, of the actual powers. There was a time, a bit more than a century ago, when mob lynching of unruly immigrants “unfairly” acquitted used to be commended. It was commended because that was what the actual powers, and also the culture prevailing at the time, wanted.

In the lapse of few days I read a Mr. Cohen say the USA should involve themselves harder in fighting to bring freedom in Syria and the Ukraine and oppose freedom-denying Russia, and noticed the previously really free comments sectionhad been turned into an instrument of demagoguery, under the editors’ strict control, a lifeless extension of the commented pieces.
I won’t be able to go back to read the NYT after that.

The New York Times is the highest standard of journalism in the world ever for all time. They still have my Pulitzer prize that I was awarded for serving Stalin by lying my ass off. A few years ago Ukranian human rights representatives tried to persuade Carlos Slim’s lackeys to take it off of the wall, and of course that didn’t happen.

The NY Times is the standard against which all other newspapers are judged. You deplorable rabble in your basket cannot hope to prevail against it.

I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie back in 1966. My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up man.
The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic Harper's etc.

I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical non profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people

Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly anti White. I realized that just out of college.

The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti black rioters than the Times.

How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally hate Whites?

The fact that the mainstream media by and large hates whites is one of the main things about it that appeals to the whites on the left.

Great little post. I've got a book about the Holodomor entitled "Execution by Hunger" by Miron Dolot. I haven't read it yet but it's near the top of my stack 'to be read'.

Terrible thing the Holodomor...so many millions of lives snuffed out in such a unimaginably cruel and coldly systematic way.

This may be our fate if we can't wake enough people up...Agenda 21 is being rolled out under our noses as we speak!

The Holodomor victims’, and their few alive descendants’ average IQ is much less than 110-115.

You know, it’s people… how are they called?… of no consequence. Losers, of which less than 50% write books or hold respectable amounts of respectably respectable companie’ shares.

I really, really can’t see why we should think of the 10+ million people massacred in the Holodomor when none of their descendants has been Financial Times’, WSJ’s, or even The Economist’s editor-in-chief.

You know, I was there for the World Economic Forum in Davos the last time, and saw no people related with the Holodomor.

We are speaking of real nobodies. None of them in the board of any of the Big Three credit rating agencies.

I think we should talk of victims worthy of being remembered, who make themselves noticed by the world, like Hollywood, school programs all over the West, mainstream and niche media all over the West, have done for some a decade and seem to be going to keep doing, in the name, needless to say, of solidarity, equality, and — what a curious name — justice.

We had 6 million, or 6-million’s worth of victims of the people of divine nature, like wise man Jay Michaelson has tried to explain; no time or reasons to mind much if others, “undereducated” and “losers” were massacred.

They, and the circa 50-10 million people massacred by communism across the East, wouldn’t have founded Google and Facebook even if they had survived. That’s why the expression of no consequence.

You said: "We had 6 million, or 6-million’s worth of victims of the people of divine nature..." What?! Someone killed 6 million Tibetan Buddhists?! When? Where?!

Who is Jay Michaelson? Never heard of him. Is he that guy who the cops busted having anal sex with those homeless Negros?

After I finish reading "Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust" I'm either going to read "The Holocaust Hoax Exposed: Debunking The 20th Century's Greatest Fabrication" by Victor Thorn, or, "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand. They're both so good...maybe I'll flip a coin.

I have never studied the Jewish Holocaust, but is it not the case that Hitler did indeed hate Jews and sought to exterminate them, directly or indirectly, e.g., through brutal forced labor, just as he planned to exterminate most of the inhabitants of Eastern Europe to make way for German expansion?

Moreover, is it not the case that whatever the exact number, millions of Jews did indeed die as a direct or indirect result of Nazi policy.

If those premises are granted, the question is not whether the Jewish Holocaust happened, but why it has a legally enforced special status, which prohibits Europeans from speaking or publishing research findings that question any aspect of the official Holocaust narrative, and which has resulted in the creation of a special US State Department office dedicated to fighting "anti-Semitism," plus numerous publicly and privately funded brainwashing programs to indoctrinate children with the idea that the Jews were specially singled out for destruction, whereas, in fact, Hitler intended the destruction of many people, including homosexuals, gypsies, mental defectives, Poles and Russians.

The answer to that question, I suggest, is to give Jews, particularly those represented by the State of Israel, a special victim status which they can repeatedly exploit to extract money, weapons and sympathy from Britain, France, the US, Germany and other countries. It does this in two ways. First, by its simple appeal for sympathy, Second, by the reaction it elicits from some less naive people, who can then be help us as proof of the fact that Jews are specially hated by the goyim — the result of what one prominent, Nobel-prize winning Jew referred to as the age-old goyish mental disease of anti-Semitism.

This alleged proof of ongoing Jewish victimization is then used most profitably to evoke sympathy from naive taxpayers who fund much of Israel's military expenditures, nuclear weapons programs, etc.

#50 @Anonymous
Holodomor figures are enormously exaggerated, probably to outdo the 6 million ....
And if NYT silenced the result of the angloamerican pushpull action the Hearst media later made all the more of it using nazi propaganda material. The Us had depression and the oligarchy was desperate to blackwash any alternative system.
Pushpull:first sponsoring and helping the bolsheviks to take Russia, then as they continued the necessary industrialization already begun by Tsar Russia, (and that btw was part of the reason the revolution was forced upon them) and bought machines from Britain, the latter refused to accept payment other than in grain. Guess why! Both the Us and Uk did that to provoke starvation. And the Soviets predicted they would be attacked in a decade so it was about life and death for them to get the industry up and running.

The problem with accusing the Ukrainians of having shot down MH-17 is found in the wreckage. The type of pellet that did the damage is not found in the version of the Buk missile in the possession of the Ukrainians. Only the newer version, owned only by the Russians, have the type of pellet that did the damage.

Russia shot down MH-17. Russian troops are known to be in eastern Ukraine operating heavy weapons. Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas and a lot of the artillery fire that has been aimed at the Ukrainians has come from Russian territory.

You've swallowed a load of Putinist propaganda.

You habitually accuse the UNZ Review readers in “swallowing Putin propaganda” when you asked to provide proofs for your cavalier Russophobic statements. In case you have not noticed yet, UNZ Review does not publish Eliot Higgins (and other experts in selling ladies underwear), but prefers to deal with the serious thinkers and professionals.

Equating NYT aka "JYT" with Pravda is wrong. While Pravda propagated Moscow propaganda for Soviet communist rulers - NYT writes all its news concerning the Middle East by obeying Israel's GAG Order, as it admitted in April 2014.

On October 8, 2015, Rick Gladstone, Jewish York Times foreign editor, repeated Israel’s propaganda lie about Islam’s third most sacred worship place, Al-Aqsa Mosque built on top of the so-called “Temple Mount”.

“The question, which many books and scholarly treaties have never definitively answered, is the 37-acre site, home to Islam’s sacred Dome of Rock shrine and Al-Aqsa Mosque, was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both since gone.”

Even though Gladstone amended his original article after he was ridiculed and insulted by former Israeli jail-guard Jeffrey Goldberg, Liel Leibvitz, Jeremy Burton, etc. by adding “Temple Mount” after “37-acre” – it still doesn’t meet the historical and religious facts. For example, calling the two temples destroyed by Babylonian and Titus, as “Jewish temples” is ridiculous. Israeli historian Dr. Shlomo Sand has claimed that “Jews were invented only a century ago.”

Islam’s sacred building on the hilltop is Al-Aqsa Mosque and not the shiny Dome of Rock. Al-Aqsa Mosque was built originally by Caliph Abd al-Malik of Umayyad dynasty in 890 CE on the spot from where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) began his journey (Miraj) to have conversation with the Mighty Allah. Al-Aqsa Mosque expansion was done by Ottoman Sultans. Currently, it can hold nearly 3000 worshippers.

Caliph Abd al-Malik also built a separate structure to enclose a large piece of rock which according to Islamic traditions was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to embark on Buraq (Heavenly creature that looked like a horse). The structure also covers a small cave where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said to have meeting with prophet Abraham. A large dome, originally covered with gold-plates, was installed on top of the structure by Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi after he captured Jerusalem from the Franks (crusaders), who used Al-Aqsa Mosque as a palace in the 1100s.

The Dome of Rock has never been used as a mosque. The five daily prayers have never been conducted inside the Dome of Rock. It’s a sort of historical museum. However, visitors, including myself, have used it to be part of prayer lead by an imam inside Al-Aqsa Mosque next door.

Rick Gladstone didn’t mention the small Umar Mosque built by Arab Muslims when they took control of Jerusalem city in 638 CE under the command of Caliph Umer bin al-Khattab (as) after cleaning the hilltop which had been used a garbage dump by both Romans and Christian Franks.

Rick Gladstone also lied that no archeological work had been conducted of the hilltop, which is under the control of Jordanian ‘royals’.

American archaeologist and author, Professor Dr. Ernest L. Martin (1932-2002) had conducted archaeology work in East Jerusalem. In his controversial book ‘The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot’, published in 1999 – Dr. Martin claimed that Muslim sacred places, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of Rock are not built on top of the Temple Mount ruins.

https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/15/nyt-lies-about-al-aqsa-mosque/

I am not aware of “Christian Franks” in Jerusalem before 638 CE. Enlighten me.

Also I would have thought the Romans who left their detritus would have been Greek speaking Byzantines n’est-ce pas?)

I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM.

“…a text by Alex Gibney: “Johannes Wahlstrom, a Swedish journalist who helped to engineer a vilification campaign against the two women who accused Mr. Assange of sexual assaults”

Alex Gibnev happened to be a person of easy virtues, similar to his brother-in-lies Luke Harding.

The Holodomor victims', and their few alive descendants' average IQ is much less than 110-115.

You know, it's people... how are they called?... of no consequence. Losers, of which less than 50% write books or hold respectable amounts of respectably respectable companie' shares.

I really, really can't see why we should think of the 10+ million people massacred in the Holodomor when none of their descendants has been Financial Times', WSJ's, or even The Economist's editor-in-chief.

You know, I was there for the World Economic Forum in Davos the last time, and saw no people related with the Holodomor.

We are speaking of real nobodies. None of them in the board of any of the Big Three credit rating agencies.

I think we should talk of victims worthy of being remembered, who make themselves noticed by the world, like Hollywood, school programs all over the West, mainstream and niche media all over the West, have done for some a decade and seem to be going to keep doing, in the name, needless to say, of solidarity, equality, and — what a curious name — justice.

We had 6 million, or 6-million's worth of victims of the people of divine nature, like wise man Jay Michaelson has tried to explain; no time or reasons to mind much if others, "undereducated" and "losers" were massacred.

They, and the circa 50-10 million people massacred by communism across the East, wouldn't have founded Google and Facebook even if they had survived. That's why the expression of no consequence.

Like a famous ad stated, life is about priorities.

What a strange person you are…funny, but strange!

You said: “We had 6 million, or 6-million’s worth of victims of the people of divine nature…” What?! Someone killed 6 million Tibetan Buddhists?! When? Where?!

Who is Jay Michaelson? Never heard of him. Is he that guy who the cops busted having anal sex with those homeless Negros?

After I finish reading “Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust” I’m either going to read “The Holocaust Hoax Exposed: Debunking The 20th Century’s Greatest Fabrication” by Victor Thorn, or, “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand. They’re both so good…maybe I’ll flip a coin.

The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position. I had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces. For a while, my comments were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I could not make comments or even access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted them and was told that my access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.
I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me. I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis. I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary opinions would not appear.
I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if you follow the line they set.

Why might they – or at least some quite junior staff – regard you as important enough or your comments as powerful enough to engage in the censorship which they appear to deny?

The Holodomor victims', and their few alive descendants' average IQ is much less than 110-115.

You know, it's people... how are they called?... of no consequence. Losers, of which less than 50% write books or hold respectable amounts of respectably respectable companie' shares.

I really, really can't see why we should think of the 10+ million people massacred in the Holodomor when none of their descendants has been Financial Times', WSJ's, or even The Economist's editor-in-chief.

You know, I was there for the World Economic Forum in Davos the last time, and saw no people related with the Holodomor.

We are speaking of real nobodies. None of them in the board of any of the Big Three credit rating agencies.

I think we should talk of victims worthy of being remembered, who make themselves noticed by the world, like Hollywood, school programs all over the West, mainstream and niche media all over the West, have done for some a decade and seem to be going to keep doing, in the name, needless to say, of solidarity, equality, and — what a curious name — justice.

We had 6 million, or 6-million's worth of victims of the people of divine nature, like wise man Jay Michaelson has tried to explain; no time or reasons to mind much if others, "undereducated" and "losers" were massacred.

They, and the circa 50-10 million people massacred by communism across the East, wouldn't have founded Google and Facebook even if they had survived. That's why the expression of no consequence.

Like a famous ad stated, life is about priorities.

I have never studied the Jewish Holocaust, but is it not the case that Hitler did indeed hate Jews and sought to exterminate them, directly or indirectly, e.g., through brutal forced labor, just as he planned to exterminate most of the inhabitants of Eastern Europe to make way for German expansion?

Moreover, is it not the case that whatever the exact number, millions of Jews did indeed die as a direct or indirect result of Nazi policy.

If those premises are granted, the question is not whether the Jewish Holocaust happened, but why it has a legally enforced special status, which prohibits Europeans from speaking or publishing research findings that question any aspect of the official Holocaust narrative, and which has resulted in the creation of a special US State Department office dedicated to fighting “anti-Semitism,” plus numerous publicly and privately funded brainwashing programs to indoctrinate children with the idea that the Jews were specially singled out for destruction, whereas, in fact, Hitler intended the destruction of many people, including homosexuals, gypsies, mental defectives, Poles and Russians.

The answer to that question, I suggest, is to give Jews, particularly those represented by the State of Israel, a special victim status which they can repeatedly exploit to extract money, weapons and sympathy from Britain, France, the US, Germany and other countries. It does this in two ways. First, by its simple appeal for sympathy, Second, by the reaction it elicits from some less naive people, who can then be help us as proof of the fact that Jews are specially hated by the goyim — the result of what one prominent, Nobel-prize winning Jew referred to as the age-old goyish mental disease of anti-Semitism.

This alleged proof of ongoing Jewish victimization is then used most profitably to evoke sympathy from naive taxpayers who fund much of Israel’s military expenditures, nuclear weapons programs, etc.

They rarely print corrections when caught in a lie, and even attack those speaking the truth by implying they are foreign agents. In reality nearly all major media have become spin machines evidenced by that article's interesting news item that I read nowhere else:

The MH-17 Case

As an example, MacFarquhar cites the case of the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, claiming “Russia pumped out a dizzying array of theories.” The Times correspondent then asserts as flat fact that “The cloud of stories helped veil the simple truth that poorly trained insurgents had accidentally downed the plane with a missile supplied by Russia.”The Dutch Safety Board’s reconstruction of where it believed the missile exploded near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. But, according to official investigations that have been underway for more than two years, MacFarquhar’s claim is not “the simple truth,” as he put it. Last year’s report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people.Indeed, the DSB’s report included a statement by Dutch intelligence (reflecting NATO’s intelligence data) that the only powerful anti-aircraft-missile systems in eastern Ukraine on that day – capable of hitting MH-17 at 33,000 feet – were under the control of the Ukrainian military. (Though an official document, this Dutch intelligence report has never been mentioned by The New York Times, presumably because it conflicts with the favored Russia-did-it narrative.)

NYT has been fabricating stories as long as it exists to assist USA government engineer regime changes and colour revolutions, and wage reckless wars on the fabricated allegations around the world, as well as white wash American war crimes. NYT is the core of the Western black information network to spread disinformation and misinformation for the American conquest of global full spectrum dominance via organised violence and committing crime against humanity.

It is puzzling why the NYT has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance because it works with the government to suppress stories, covering up election fraud in the ruling party and ruthlessly campaigning against the main US opposition leader Donald Trump while it has been doing the same unscrupulous things since its existence? Is it because the author’s sense of justice is selective, and he feels the American is exceptional, injustice applies to people not American does not count?

For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space" type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).

That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.

Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication).

I really love the Unz commenting system. The ability to follow a thread through linking, and to trace the history of any commenter, is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and without the “indenting” that Mars other comment systems.

I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features.

Check out the ~5x increase in the prevalence of the word "racism" in NYT articles between 2011 and 2016:
http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=racism
"racist" is similar.

Interesting that the NY Times has a publicly accessible tool that allows one to graph the newspaper’s fixation on certain topics. I applied the term “transgender,” those mostly men (males) identifying as women and demanding access to previously women only spaces (bathrooms and locker and shower rooms), and found an almost identical rocket ship rise in the newspaper’s fixation on transgenders beginning in 2010-2011 (parallel with and to almost the same extreme heights as the words “racist” and “racism“).

Given the downward trend of using the words racist and racism until the dramatic 5X up tick in 2011, that you noted, I wonder what explains the timing of the change.

Perhaps the NY Times owners’ appointment of New Orleans born African-American / Creole / black journalist Dean Baquet as Managing Editor in September 2011 and his promotion to Executive Editor on May 14, 2014 signaled their intent to dramatically escalate the racial focus. Carlos Slim also bought into the NY Times in 2008 and increased his holdings in 2012.

The on-line word tracing tool, Google N-Gram Viewer displays a similar dramatic recent rise in the appearance of words like racism and racist and transgender in books. Like the Chronicle.NYTLABS tool that you site, the N-Gram Viewer visually graphs the percent of books using selected words or phrases over a selected time period from the 25 million books scanned and digitized by Google. You can track the use of words in multiple languages from as early as 1700 up to 2009.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Transgender peaks below racism (as you noted), but the rise is much more dramatic--thanks for pointing that one out.

Google N-Gram Viewer is great, but they don't seem to be updating it so it's less useful for tracking changes since Obama became president.

Interesting thoughts about NYT changes as causes. I've tended to attribute the "racism" change to Obama's second term and post-Trayvon (early 2012) incitement, but you might have a better explanation. I wonder if the NYT articles database includes details like authors and section of the newspaper. It would be fascinating to see a more detailed analysis of who/what section seem to be driving the changes.

One fear I have is that publicizing these examples of NYT word frequency will cause the Chronicle tool to disappear.

1) The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation. Only in 2012 did the NY Times — of all publications — flatly admit that they’d suppressed the truth all those years — at the request of the Pentagon for obvious national security reasons.

A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) — properly detonated — could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway.

Hundreds of these rounds were ultimately recovered. The enemy never understood what they had their hands on, as Saddam had ensured that these nerve agent rounds looked identical to conventional rounds. He’s the only madman that crazy.

( He did so to hide their usage from the French military advisors during his Iranian invasion. )

2) The Dutch are correct. MH-17 can’t be resolved as the Russians and Ukrainians have essentially identical counter-air assets. Both parties have every reason to lie; and to screw up. The flight should never have been routed anywhere near the conflict. KAL 007 and Iran Air 655 should’ve been warning enough.

3) The US MSM is over concentrated to a ruinous degree. Ditto for America’s J-schools, whose ethos is to propagandise the World for its betterment.

4) It’s no joke that the NY Times regards anyone west of the Hudson to be rubes.

5) They can spew it out — but can’t take correction — at ANY level. This causes a profound detachment from ground truth.

The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation. Only in 2012 did the NY Times — of all publications — flatly admit that they’d suppressed the truth all those years — at the request of the Pentagon for obvious national security reasons.

I have seen some Wild Shit on the Internet but this takes the cake.

So there was a coverup of the fact that those rounds which were used as legitimization to go to war actually did not not exist? Makes sense ... if you are making a movie for George Lucas.

A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) — properly detonated — could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway.

Newsflash: 9/11 was BEFORE the Iraq War II. Iraq War I was even before that. That's about 10 years during which rounds lying around from Iraq War I (and there were whole stockpiles of them, nicely built with US know-how) could have gone all the way to the "New York subway"

And thanks for the alert, "A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) — properly detonated — could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway."
There is more for your attentions.
"Concern in Russia is increasing over the growing number of hard-to-access, double-purpose medical laboratories, financed by the US Department of Defense, appearing alongside its borders..." https://sputniknews.com/world/20160908/1045088663/us-russia-biological-laboratories.html
"Russia Says U.S. Expanding Bioweapons Labs in Europe:" http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-says-u-s-expanding-bioweapons-labs-in-europe/

I really love the Unz commenting system. The ability to follow a thread through linking, and to trace the history of any commenter, is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.

I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features.

I agree, the Unz commenting system just needed some getting used to after the WaPo system and Disqus. It’s very good.

The Holodomor victims', and their few alive descendants' average IQ is much less than 110-115.

You know, it's people... how are they called?... of no consequence. Losers, of which less than 50% write books or hold respectable amounts of respectably respectable companie' shares.

I really, really can't see why we should think of the 10+ million people massacred in the Holodomor when none of their descendants has been Financial Times', WSJ's, or even The Economist's editor-in-chief.

You know, I was there for the World Economic Forum in Davos the last time, and saw no people related with the Holodomor.

We are speaking of real nobodies. None of them in the board of any of the Big Three credit rating agencies.

I think we should talk of victims worthy of being remembered, who make themselves noticed by the world, like Hollywood, school programs all over the West, mainstream and niche media all over the West, have done for some a decade and seem to be going to keep doing, in the name, needless to say, of solidarity, equality, and — what a curious name — justice.

We had 6 million, or 6-million's worth of victims of the people of divine nature, like wise man Jay Michaelson has tried to explain; no time or reasons to mind much if others, "undereducated" and "losers" were massacred.

They, and the circa 50-10 million people massacred by communism across the East, wouldn't have founded Google and Facebook even if they had survived. That's why the expression of no consequence.

Like a famous ad stated, life is about priorities.

#50
Holodomor figures are enormously exaggerated, probably to outdo the 6 million ….
And if NYT silenced the result of the angloamerican pushpull action the Hearst media later made all the more of it using nazi propaganda material. The Us had depression and the oligarchy was desperate to blackwash any alternative system.
Pushpull:first sponsoring and helping the bolsheviks to take Russia, then as they continued the necessary industrialization already begun by Tsar Russia, (and that btw was part of the reason the revolution was forced upon them) and bought machines from Britain, the latter refused to accept payment other than in grain. Guess why! Both the Us and Uk did that to provoke starvation. And the Soviets predicted they would be attacked in a decade so it was about life and death for them to get the industry up and running.

You want to see serious heavy duty censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively anti-trump site "the american cuck....er conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity, they never fail to censor any comment even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey.....all with a patina of intellectual superiority. One of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of crap to 300 lb starving afros and white trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana.

Yes, I was (apparently) banned from commenting on that site for suggesting that several of their bloggers (some regular contributors, some not) seemed to favor a certain religious denomination as Conservatism’s official religion. Didn’t seem all that controversial to me. Hats off to Ron Unz for not censoring comments.

Rod Dreher is a timid, officious, dangerously naive little faggot who will prattle on about meaningless religious doctrinal debates and wring his hands about Trump while we are dispossessed of our own country.

Interesting that the NY Times has a publicly accessible tool that allows one to graph the newspaper’s fixation on certain topics. I applied the term “transgender,” those mostly men (males) identifying as women and demanding access to previously women only spaces (bathrooms and locker and shower rooms), and found an almost identical rocket ship rise in the newspaper’s fixation on transgenders beginning in 2010-2011 (parallel with and to almost the same extreme heights as the words “racist” and “racism“).

Given the downward trend of using the words racist and racism until the dramatic 5X up tick in 2011, that you noted, I wonder what explains the timing of the change.

Perhaps the NY Times owners’ appointment of New Orleans born African-American / Creole / black journalist Dean Baquet as Managing Editor in September 2011 and his promotion to Executive Editor on May 14, 2014 signaled their intent to dramatically escalate the racial focus. Carlos Slim also bought into the NY Times in 2008 and increased his holdings in 2012.

The on-line word tracing tool, Google N-Gram Viewer displays a similar dramatic recent rise in the appearance of words like racism and racist and transgender in books. Like the Chronicle.NYTLABS tool that you site, the N-Gram Viewer visually graphs the percent of books using selected words or phrases over a selected time period from the 25 million books scanned and digitized by Google. You can track the use of words in multiple languages from as early as 1700 up to 2009.

Found at: https://books.google.com/ngrams

Sadly, not just the NY Times has been racialized and transgenderized and social warriorized.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Transgender peaks below racism (as you noted), but the rise is much more dramatic–thanks for pointing that one out.

Google N-Gram Viewer is great, but they don’t seem to be updating it so it’s less useful for tracking changes since Obama became president.

Interesting thoughts about NYT changes as causes. I’ve tended to attribute the “racism” change to Obama’s second term and post-Trayvon (early 2012) incitement, but you might have a better explanation. I wonder if the NYT articles database includes details like authors and section of the newspaper. It would be fascinating to see a more detailed analysis of who/what section seem to be driving the changes.

One fear I have is that publicizing these examples of NYT word frequency will cause the Chronicle tool to disappear.

The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position. I had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces. For a while, my comments were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I could not make comments or even access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted them and was told that my access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.
I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me. I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis. I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary opinions would not appear.
I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if you follow the line they set.

Very much doubt they’d do that. Not that they have principles. Would take too much time. They simply don’t print the comment. I have maybe one in ten printed, I’ve stopped wondering why. I think they have some fifth columnists there, to be honest, some comments I make are so innocuous, so un-inflammatory but they still don’t get printed, convinced it’s payback for all my anti-Israel comments, most of which, natch, but not all, don’t get published.

The New York Times has soiled its reputation long time ago. But to observe a vulgarization of the previously respectful New Yorker is rather painful; the nest of intellectuals has become a nest of opportunistic half-wits. The New Yorker’ pandering to Clinton is beyond ridiculous.

[…] and the MSM are now one agency. Of related interest–an essay by a European journalist: An Obituary of The New York Times Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low (Gallup) “Americans’ trust and […]

The problem with accusing the Ukrainians of having shot down MH-17 is found in the wreckage. The type of pellet that did the damage is not found in the version of the Buk missile in the possession of the Ukrainians. Only the newer version, owned only by the Russians, have the type of pellet that did the damage.

Russia shot down MH-17. Russian troops are known to be in eastern Ukraine operating heavy weapons. Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas and a lot of the artillery fire that has been aimed at the Ukrainians has come from Russian territory.

You've swallowed a load of Putinist propaganda.

On the contrary, I have heard the exact opposite, although I cannot find the reference at the moment (i.e. very old model Buk, probably escaped from some Ukrainian hangar).

AFAIK, the US still hasn’t delivered on the promises of having “proof” as made by Kerry. This alone stinks.

Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas

I guess we are really dealing with alternate realities here. This MAY have happened but if it did, Russia sure won’t say.

Interestingly, NYT published a non-front-page article about the the Donbas in early 2015, where the journalist went looking for Russians but didn’t find any anywhere.

Look, I take russia's side entirely on the Donbass mess, but it's foolish to say that there are no Russians there fighting and training because some journalist didn't find any.

Did the journalist speak fluent Russian?

So well that he can tell the difference between a Russian accent and a Ukrainian-Russian accent? Almost every person in Ukraine speaks Russian as a native language, and everyone in the Donbass surely does, including those who identify as Ukrainian and don't want to secede or join Russia.

My guess is that Russians are absolutely actively fighting and training fighters in Donbass, and they should be.

I'd just like them to give koenigsberg back to Germany, but that is a topic for another thread. And impossible, too, since the Germans are too pussified to even kept their own present tiny territory from Muslims and African savages.

1) The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation. Only in 2012 did the NY Times -- of all publications -- flatly admit that they'd suppressed the truth all those years -- at the request of the Pentagon for obvious national security reasons.

A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) -- properly detonated -- could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway.

Hundreds of these rounds were ultimately recovered. The enemy never understood what they had their hands on, as Saddam had ensured that these nerve agent rounds looked identical to conventional rounds. He's the only madman that crazy.

( He did so to hide their usage from the French military advisors during his Iranian invasion. )

2) The Dutch are correct. MH-17 can't be resolved as the Russians and Ukrainians have essentially identical counter-air assets. Both parties have every reason to lie; and to screw up. The flight should never have been routed anywhere near the conflict. KAL 007 and Iran Air 655 should've been warning enough.

3) The US MSM is over concentrated to a ruinous degree. Ditto for America's J-schools, whose ethos is to propagandise the World for its betterment.

4) It's no joke that the NY Times regards anyone west of the Hudson to be rubes.

5) They can spew it out -- but can't take correction -- at ANY level. This causes a profound detachment from ground truth.

The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation. Only in 2012 did the NY Times — of all publications — flatly admit that they’d suppressed the truth all those years — at the request of the Pentagon for obvious national security reasons.

I have seen some Wild Shit on the Internet but this takes the cake.

So there was a coverup of the fact that those rounds which were used as legitimization to go to war actually did not not exist? Makes sense … if you are making a movie for George Lucas.

A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) — properly detonated — could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway.

Newsflash: 9/11 was BEFORE the Iraq War II. Iraq War I was even before that. That’s about 10 years during which rounds lying around from Iraq War I (and there were whole stockpiles of them, nicely built with US know-how) could have gone all the way to the “New York subway”

1) The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation. Only in 2012 did the NY Times -- of all publications -- flatly admit that they'd suppressed the truth all those years -- at the request of the Pentagon for obvious national security reasons.

A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) -- properly detonated -- could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway.

Hundreds of these rounds were ultimately recovered. The enemy never understood what they had their hands on, as Saddam had ensured that these nerve agent rounds looked identical to conventional rounds. He's the only madman that crazy.

( He did so to hide their usage from the French military advisors during his Iranian invasion. )

2) The Dutch are correct. MH-17 can't be resolved as the Russians and Ukrainians have essentially identical counter-air assets. Both parties have every reason to lie; and to screw up. The flight should never have been routed anywhere near the conflict. KAL 007 and Iran Air 655 should've been warning enough.

3) The US MSM is over concentrated to a ruinous degree. Ditto for America's J-schools, whose ethos is to propagandise the World for its betterment.

4) It's no joke that the NY Times regards anyone west of the Hudson to be rubes.

5) They can spew it out -- but can't take correction -- at ANY level. This causes a profound detachment from ground truth.

“The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation”

“As a Swedish reader of The New York Times, I may be surprised that the paper has ignored election rigging in the governing party of the United States serious enough to cause its top five officials to resign.” Governing partey? Now, please explain. Is that the R which is in control of the legislature, or the D in control of the WH? Not to defend the NYT, but I detect this writer has an ax to grind, so has gone a bit overboard. This comment is not a news story. Just my opinion!

They rarely print corrections when caught in a lie, and even attack those speaking the truth by implying they are foreign agents. In reality nearly all major media have become spin machines evidenced by that article's interesting news item that I read nowhere else:

The MH-17 Case

As an example, MacFarquhar cites the case of the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, claiming “Russia pumped out a dizzying array of theories.” The Times correspondent then asserts as flat fact that “The cloud of stories helped veil the simple truth that poorly trained insurgents had accidentally downed the plane with a missile supplied by Russia.”The Dutch Safety Board’s reconstruction of where it believed the missile exploded near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. But, according to official investigations that have been underway for more than two years, MacFarquhar’s claim is not “the simple truth,” as he put it. Last year’s report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people.Indeed, the DSB’s report included a statement by Dutch intelligence (reflecting NATO’s intelligence data) that the only powerful anti-aircraft-missile systems in eastern Ukraine on that day – capable of hitting MH-17 at 33,000 feet – were under the control of the Ukrainian military. (Though an official document, this Dutch intelligence report has never been mentioned by The New York Times, presumably because it conflicts with the favored Russia-did-it narrative.)

This is aligned with what professor Stephen F. Cohen, (an esteemed academic on all things Russian) claimed about the downing of Flight 17. He said there was no evidence that the plane had been shot down by Russians and claims by Washington to suggest otherwise were counter-factual.

The professor also speculated the new “cold war” was more about NATO expansion than about human rights.

Cohen is published regularly in The Nation and is a frequent guest on the John Batchelor radio show. He has spoken out on the tragic state of affairs in the Ukraine for years and America’s destructive role in it.

For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space" type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).

That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.

Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication).

The CBC.ca website always had a commenting system that was at least worthwhile despite some annoying censorship and a less-than-optimal format. Within two weeks of Justin Trudeau’s election, the censorship hammer came down hard and now anyone interested in learning or offering truths has no business visiting the site. Its downright scary.

Okay here it is : We are past the point of debating any sense into the heads of these leftist ignoranti, we are past the point of disecting issues, and trying to expose and correct the misunderstandings and distorted viewpoints held by them, amen, period, basta.
All we are now left with is the cold, hard, brutal realization that we are dealing with lunatics and if we truely have a stake in preserving a modicum of sanity and civility we must come to grips with this FACT:
They, the leftist journalists, politicians, edumacators, “artists”, jurists, etc, etc, : They are insane, nuts, bonkers, and it shear impossible, futile to try to reason with them, take it from there.
Authenticjazzman, pro jazz performer and “Mensa” member of forty-plus years.

Well Johannes. It looks like the NYT has finally met someone in Donald Trump that is going to take them on in the courts. The new hit piece dealing with these two women was the last straw. There is very little journalistic integrity left.

Thank you for the article by Johanne Walstrom he shows tremendous courage Like Winston Churchill before the battle of Britain 1940. We shall prevail over this attempted coup! The NYT will go into the trash bin of history with most off its efforts in the past. Unlike Winston Churchill a true and honest Journalist..look at his work and life. What the American press has accomplished in a few short weeks is credulous and sedisas . Trump is not the smartest with his mouth but he is Honest .God help America. God has surely left your shores you have chosen Barabbas and Barbabas you shall have.

When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won't matter how many lies they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition.

They've followed their mission-plan well. Now the BIG action is with the Mossad boys to implement the war the NYT has so feverishly set up.

But, like a bad script waiting for the Production Dept. to catch up, they've run their course, in more ways than their tiny brains can even imagine.

They didn't even know they were writing comedy.

Of course,they are zions arm in America,completely Jewish owned and completely full of shite.
A bunch of mole traitors,all in on divide and conquer,and hopefully there are still enough patriots left on Nov.8 to send them a number 1 message.
Never has there been such outright lying concerning a potential POTUS,DT,and his message of America First is the last thing these monsters want,as their reign of terror ends.
Wouldn’t that be something?!

. And I felt sad for the American readers, many of whom still had no idea of what was happening on the top floors of The New York Times Building on 8th Avenue.

The changes in reader commentary police occured in the last year should make it a little easier for the NYT’s tool readers to awake to reality.
Why, I should have written should have made. There is nothing that can awake the masses from masterfully administered hypnosis.

The only change history allows of concerning their condition is, a change of masters.

Since the last few months I am however no longer sad about any of this, for during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance.

Here is the error the cognitive elite is very prone to making: overvaluing the intellectual wariness of “people”. Note: intellectual wariness is much more of a scarcely spread attribute than naked intelligence.
(And even if the NYT lost credence, the Huffington Posts and Guardians would substitute for it in the mind of the for-a-second awake.)

I’m a little unclear on what exactly Wahlstrom objected to in the NYT op-ed. Is he denying that he ever wrote anything critical or revelatory about Assange’s accuser, or is he simply objecting to the harsh language used to describe his reporting?

Mr. Wahlstrom raises a real and substantive issue regarding the Times’ chronic abnegation of its mission in the service of its own aims and objectives. As has been witnessed and proven over decades by reasonably intelligent people, the agenda to be serviced may not have anything to do with a beast called Truth. It conceives of its premise based on an ultimate objective (Iraq war is only one example) and proceeds to build a case.
Unfortunately, Mr. Wahlstrom seriously undermines the credibility of his writing by proving how his own case was denigrated by the Times’ staff. While the episode may be entirely valid and true, and quite likely is, it muddies the journalistic integrity of his well-written piece.

The news media in the US, and probably the world, has evolved into a mouthpiece for social engineering, feudal peasant ignorance, crowd control, the tyranny of political correctness, ideological speculation and self-serving congratulatory adulation of globalist liberalism. Following the dictates of the financier oligarchy, they have managed to successfully dash their hierarchical brains against the modern technological imperative and its stepchild, the Internet and peer to peer lateral communication. Their ideologically propelled mischaracterizations of Hillary’s chances while the rest of us had mouse click access to the raw data, made it apparent EVEN TO THEMSELVES, that they are as blind as a Daniel Quayle potatoe.

Not communist, rather a race purified Nazi-fascist corporate dictatorship. They've infiltrated the left to the degree that the left is now their lackey, but don' t know it. Probably never will. Watch the movie "THX1138" and check out these quotes from Hitler's spawn:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
— David Rockefeller, Bilderberger Conference, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
— David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
— David Rockefeller

"But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence."
---David Rockefeller, at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994

These are just from one super-wealthy, megalomaniac. There are more. Here are a few others:

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”
— Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1992

“US must not stop Syrian resettlement. It would be a threat to ‘global governance’”.
-- David Miliband, former British Foreign Secretary who came to New York in 2013 to take the reins of the International Rescue Committee

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities...”
-- Zbigniew Brzezinski from his book "Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era"

"This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan, which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept."
-- Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future"
-- Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Psychiatrist, address to the Childhood International Education Seminar, 1973

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas…”
-- G. Brock Chisholm, psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation of Mental Health

“We ... ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others ... And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine… States have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them; sovereignty is an illusion ... sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us."
—Peter Sutherland, UN migration chief & chairman at Goldman Sachs bank, who wants to use (Muslim) immigration to destroy European countries’ culture

“If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly. … I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands…”
—Arnold Toynbee, Address to the 1931 Copenhagen conference as published in International Affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (November 1931)

Equating NYT aka "JYT" with Pravda is wrong. While Pravda propagated Moscow propaganda for Soviet communist rulers - NYT writes all its news concerning the Middle East by obeying Israel's GAG Order, as it admitted in April 2014.

On October 8, 2015, Rick Gladstone, Jewish York Times foreign editor, repeated Israel’s propaganda lie about Islam’s third most sacred worship place, Al-Aqsa Mosque built on top of the so-called “Temple Mount”.

“The question, which many books and scholarly treaties have never definitively answered, is the 37-acre site, home to Islam’s sacred Dome of Rock shrine and Al-Aqsa Mosque, was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both since gone.”

Even though Gladstone amended his original article after he was ridiculed and insulted by former Israeli jail-guard Jeffrey Goldberg, Liel Leibvitz, Jeremy Burton, etc. by adding “Temple Mount” after “37-acre” – it still doesn’t meet the historical and religious facts. For example, calling the two temples destroyed by Babylonian and Titus, as “Jewish temples” is ridiculous. Israeli historian Dr. Shlomo Sand has claimed that “Jews were invented only a century ago.”

Islam’s sacred building on the hilltop is Al-Aqsa Mosque and not the shiny Dome of Rock. Al-Aqsa Mosque was built originally by Caliph Abd al-Malik of Umayyad dynasty in 890 CE on the spot from where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) began his journey (Miraj) to have conversation with the Mighty Allah. Al-Aqsa Mosque expansion was done by Ottoman Sultans. Currently, it can hold nearly 3000 worshippers.

Caliph Abd al-Malik also built a separate structure to enclose a large piece of rock which according to Islamic traditions was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to embark on Buraq (Heavenly creature that looked like a horse). The structure also covers a small cave where the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said to have meeting with prophet Abraham. A large dome, originally covered with gold-plates, was installed on top of the structure by Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi after he captured Jerusalem from the Franks (crusaders), who used Al-Aqsa Mosque as a palace in the 1100s.

The Dome of Rock has never been used as a mosque. The five daily prayers have never been conducted inside the Dome of Rock. It’s a sort of historical museum. However, visitors, including myself, have used it to be part of prayer lead by an imam inside Al-Aqsa Mosque next door.

Rick Gladstone didn’t mention the small Umar Mosque built by Arab Muslims when they took control of Jerusalem city in 638 CE under the command of Caliph Umer bin al-Khattab (as) after cleaning the hilltop which had been used a garbage dump by both Romans and Christian Franks.

Rick Gladstone also lied that no archeological work had been conducted of the hilltop, which is under the control of Jordanian ‘royals’.

American archaeologist and author, Professor Dr. Ernest L. Martin (1932-2002) had conducted archaeology work in East Jerusalem. In his controversial book ‘The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot’, published in 1999 – Dr. Martin claimed that Muslim sacred places, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of Rock are not built on top of the Temple Mount ruins.

https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/15/nyt-lies-about-al-aqsa-mosque/

Mohammad has no claim to God whatsoever. He is nothing more than an idealoligist, who started an idology based on subjugation of women and conqured adversaries. Kill or subjugate to conquer.

Seconded. Islam is a an inherently violent, cruel, imperialist political movement -- found by ruthless woman-hating mentally ill pedophile -- that uses fear of God and rewards in the afterlife to motivate its slaves to go conquer and make more slaves.

Of course,they are zions arm in America,completely Jewish owned and completely full of shite.
A bunch of mole traitors,all in on divide and conquer,and hopefully there are still enough patriots left on Nov.8 to send them a number 1 message.
Never has there been such outright lying concerning a potential POTUS,DT,and his message of America First is the last thing these monsters want,as their reign of terror ends.
Wouldn't that be something?!

The news media in the US, and probably the world, has evolved into a mouthpiece for social engineering, feudal peasant ignorance, crowd control, the tyranny of political correctness, ideological speculation and self-serving congratulatory adulation of globalist liberalism. Following the dictates of the financier oligarchy, they have managed to successfully dash their hierarchical brains against the modern technological imperative and its stepchild, the Internet and peer to peer lateral communication. Their ideologically propelled mischaracterizations of Hillary's chances while the rest of us had mouse click access to the raw data, made it apparent EVEN TO THEMSELVES, that they are as blind as a Daniel Quayle potatoe.

Strangely enough you ommited the main goal and driving force behind the world media :

The installation of a world-wide singular government in the form of : Communism.

Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” Society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

" I think that is the inescapable conclusion", who's conclusion, yours or his?

He gives me the impression of being of the (leftist) mindset which deems it honorable to hunt down and disempower nazis, however hunting communists is tabu and they are to be left unhindered in their endeavors.

Authenticjazzman, " "Mensa" Society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

The news media in the US, and probably the world, has evolved into a mouthpiece for social engineering, feudal peasant ignorance, crowd control, the tyranny of political correctness, ideological speculation and self-serving congratulatory adulation of globalist liberalism. Following the dictates of the financier oligarchy, they have managed to successfully dash their hierarchical brains against the modern technological imperative and its stepchild, the Internet and peer to peer lateral communication. Their ideologically propelled mischaracterizations of Hillary's chances while the rest of us had mouse click access to the raw data, made it apparent EVEN TO THEMSELVES, that they are as blind as a Daniel Quayle potatoe.

Not communist, rather a race purified Nazi-fascist corporate dictatorship. They’ve infiltrated the left to the degree that the left is now their lackey, but don’ t know it. Probably never will. Watch the movie “THX1138″ and check out these quotes from Hitler’s spawn:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
— David Rockefeller, Bilderberger Conference, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
— David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
— David Rockefeller

“But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.”
—David Rockefeller, at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994

These are just from one super-wealthy, megalomaniac. There are more. Here are a few others:

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”
— Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1992

“US must not stop Syrian resettlement. It would be a threat to ‘global governance’”.
– David Miliband, former British Foreign Secretary who came to New York in 2013 to take the reins of the International Rescue Committee

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities…”
– Zbigniew Brzezinski from his book “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era”

“This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan, which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”
– Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future”
– Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Psychiatrist, address to the Childhood International Education Seminar, 1973

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas…”
– G. Brock Chisholm, psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation of Mental Health

“We … ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others … And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine… States have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them; sovereignty is an illusion … sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us.”
—Peter Sutherland, UN migration chief & chairman at Goldman Sachs bank, who wants to use (Muslim) immigration to destroy European countries’ culture

“If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly. … I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands…”
—Arnold Toynbee, Address to the 1931 Copenhagen conference as published in International Affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (November 1931)

” I think that is the inescapable conclusion”, who’s conclusion, yours or his?

He gives me the impression of being of the (leftist) mindset which deems it honorable to hunt down and disempower nazis, however hunting communists is tabu and they are to be left unhindered in their endeavors.

Authenticjazzman, ” “Mensa” Society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

" I think that is the inescapable conclusion", who's conclusion, yours or his?

He gives me the impression of being of the (leftist) mindset which deems it honorable to hunt down and disempower nazis, however hunting communists is tabu and they are to be left unhindered in their endeavors.

Authenticjazzman, " "Mensa" Society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Hi Jazzman… If I can figure how to do this… I will put in the video of my greatest… James Brown!

Jazzman… you need to study this guy… everbody should…. that is … What is! I am and what is is james brown!

I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM.

You can also try Dennis Michael Lynch for real news. I trust him and no longer listen to the stuff that comes from any mainstream media. Dennis Michael Lynch is on FB, and is starting his own news media after leaving MSM for not confirming to their lives and propaganda.

I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM.

I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families.

We must delve into the nature of news and the origin of newspapers. For millennia news was spread verbally, face to face, and that looked more like gossips. Then the printing technique appeared and then some guy decided to print and disseminate those gossips, half-truth, half-lie. Soon many started their own newspapers and began to hire informants and spies, later known as journalists. Finally, newspapers began printing not only information reports, but opinion essays, thus political journalism was born. By the American and French Revolutions newspapers became the ultimate tools for political propaganda (originally a religious term). Finally the nature of mass media was shaped during the Crimean War (1853-56). Learn how British newspapers covered the war back then and later Russia during the Great Game, it is very revealing; so many parallels with today. Since then, more than for the past 150 years, hardly anything has changed. The goal of newspapers is not only to report but mainly to manipulate public opinion and influence politics and decision making. They are not meant to disseminate the truth. This is some sort of illusion, wishful thinking that journalism only makes truth. I myself wish it were thus, but. The only difference back then was that everybody could open and issue a newspaper and there might be many agendas depending on who the owner of a newspaper was. Now every main informational outlet is influenced, controlled or directly owned by big corporations and globalist crooks. But even local newspapers, like of a county or a city, have sure their own agenda and propaganda. I saw myself how a local newspaper wrote articles openly advertising one local businessman and blackening the other (though the newspaper would never acknowledge they had been bought, but it was so blatantly obvious).

I had together with many of my peers seen The New York Times as a guiding star in standards of journalism.

Sorry for you. Weren’t the Pentagon Papers also publicized by the Washington Post?

Seriously, publishing was probably a good thing, but neither informing the public nor ethics were why the NYT published them.

It was a simple political manoeuvre, they wanted Nixon out.

I used to read the supplement they published in the English edition of Asahi News for study, I realised that the lies of the NYT were just making me feel bad and angry (seriously), so I stopped buying it years ago. That stopped, then they had a Japan edition of the International Herald Tribune for some time, but I never bought it, it is the same thing.

I don’t even know if that is still going, good riddance if it has collapsed.

The NYT, the WP, the bastions of Big Media, have a story, and the story dictates how the “news” is framed. One clear message: Open borders are the best. This leads them to run story after story about peooorrrr migrants who are illegals, and never a single story about people who have lost jobs to migrants, who have been injured by illegals, whose rent is too high due to illegals. This idea that illegals do good and never bad is the story behind the story. The immigration status of criminals is never disclosed. It’s shameful and wrong.

"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

“Impossible and laughable tales of 6mil deaths and gas chambers”? Dude, have you not been to any concentration camps? Have you not watched FOOTAGE of those same concentration camps dumping hundreds of bodies of it’s victims into mass graves? Or seen pictures of The Angel of Death’s work?! Turning frickin people into soap?! Or what about the hundreds of thousands of people still alive today (ALL AROUND THE WORLD) who could tell you their first hand experience of the camps, how many of their family members died and still show you their tattoo?! Not just Jews, but gays, gypsies and Christians were sent to these camps as well!

Anyone who “believes” the Holocaust wasn’t real is LITERALLY the same as someone who believes their birth wasn’t real.
Doesn’t matter if mom and dad recount in detail the day mom went into 8hr labor and breached! Doesn’t matter if the hospital took a baby picture while still in the hospital! Doesn’t matter if there is old video footage of you coming home to a welcome party of 50 family and friends! Doesn’t matter if you have a birth certificate signed by the doctor who delivered you and one of the nurses! Doesn’t matter if that doctor is still alive today and recalls the event rather clearly! Doesn’t matter if the hospital has all those pesky records of your mother checking in and you both checking out! Doesn’t matter if you have an older sibling who remembers the day you came home from the hospital!
Why doesn’t it matter?
Because all those “stories” your mom, dad, sibling, doctor, nurse, family, friends tell and those pictures and videos of you as a baby are all SO LAUGHABLE and IMPOSSIBLE! You were born by your parents on your birthdate?! Wow, what a crock! You weren’t even there -supposedly- for half of it!
Can you even hear yourself Wally?

Johannes, I am sorry you have received such treatment. It is grossly unfair. At the very least, it should have been your right to reply. NYT wants to alienate everyone, it seems.

I can only hope the rest of the world finally realizes, as you have, that the NYT is a gossip/opinion paper and nothing more. Hopefully, they’ll stop trying to deceive the intelligent people of the world and we can all simply move on to factual news sources.

I have great fun and psychotherapy savaging jewyorktimes almost every day. When it goes under, what am I going to do with myself? Huh?

Huffington Post or what?

Further, the Death of Liberalism can be claimed in the bankruptcy of jewyorktimes, but….wait.

Liberalism as the pimping little sister of communism, per Wilmot Robertson many decades ago, will continue until the lies of racial equality, as the Foremost lie of the degenerate age we live in, is challenged.

Will Fox News do it? Seems impossible given their hysteria around Pravda Race E-quality.
God is dead for these folks : God was overthrown cuz He botched the job. Nature is not Fair and also must be Overthrown. We Shall Overcome Nature.

This is where Nature returns to Overthrow jewyorktimes and the teddy-bear children in paradise…marching toward Glory. jewyorktimes will go quietly but its children will not. Weeping and its mirror opposite, rage…..children again….will build while the Racists, White of course, figure out how to deal with the minority racists (Wilmot Robertson again).

Words will lie spent…on the ground. Meanwhile the bullets will probably fly.

2) Trucklers - (LBJ) lower class White Americans who gain wealth and power by championing non White, minority causes just because it's a path to power, pleasing the elites who would otherwise dismiss them as hicks.

3) Pussyfooters (Bush Sr. Country Club Conservatives) White Americans who prefer their own safe life, don't hate their own people but rarely defend them - they don't like trouble, they're pussies. Alt Right has given them a new word "Cuckservatives".

4) Old Belivers (Ron Paul, Pat Robertson) Sincere old guys who wish things could go back to the way things used to be when some systems supposedly worked for us when we were 90% White European American, before the Great Society, New Deal, feminism, etc

5) Proditors - (John Brown, Jane Fonda, SDS)

These are the forms of White traditional British oriented American traitors, not racial or ethnic groups with historic envy, hatreds of our people.

I know that I am getting to advanced middle age when I note that the only reason I read the New York Times (occasionally) is for the Obituaries where I can read of the demise of so many enemies, LA 70s TV writers of stupid TV shows.

I have great fun and psychotherapy savaging jewyorktimes almost every day. When it goes under, what am I going to do with myself? Huh?

Huffington Post or what?

Further, the Death of Liberalism can be claimed in the bankruptcy of jewyorktimes, but....wait.

Liberalism as the pimping little sister of communism, per Wilmot Robertson many decades ago, will continue until the lies of racial equality, as the Foremost lie of the degenerate age we live in, is challenged.

Will Fox News do it? Seems impossible given their hysteria around Pravda Race E-quality.
God is dead for these folks : God was overthrown cuz He botched the job. Nature is not Fair and also must be Overthrown. We Shall Overcome Nature.

This is where Nature returns to Overthrow jewyorktimes and the teddy-bear children in paradise...marching toward Glory. jewyorktimes will go quietly but its children will not. Weeping and its mirror opposite, rage.....children again....will build while the Racists, White of course, figure out how to deal with the minority racists (Wilmot Robertson again).

Words will lie spent...on the ground. Meanwhile the bullets will probably fly.

2) Trucklers – (LBJ) lower class White Americans who gain wealth and power by championing non White, minority causes just because it’s a path to power, pleasing the elites who would otherwise dismiss them as hicks.

3) Pussyfooters (Bush Sr. Country Club Conservatives) White Americans who prefer their own safe life, don’t hate their own people but rarely defend them – they don’t like trouble, they’re pussies. Alt Right has given them a new word “Cuckservatives”.

4) Old Belivers (Ron Paul, Pat Robertson) Sincere old guys who wish things could go back to the way things used to be when some systems supposedly worked for us when we were 90% White European American, before the Great Society, New Deal, feminism, etc

5) Proditors – (John Brown, Jane Fonda, SDS)

These are the forms of White traditional British oriented American traitors, not racial or ethnic groups with historic envy, hatreds of our people.

“Impossible and laughable tales of 6mil deaths and gas chambers”? Dude, have you not been to any concentration camps? Have you not watched FOOTAGE of those same concentration camps dumping hundreds of bodies of it’s victims into mass graves? Or seen pictures of The Angel of Death’s work?! Turning frickin people into soap?! Or what about the hundreds of thousands of people still alive today (ALL AROUND THE WORLD) who could tell you their first hand experience of the camps, how many of their family members died and still show you their tattoo?! Not just Jews, but gays, gypsies and Christians were sent to these camps as well!

Beat, most of the problems with the orthodox holocaust narrative are problems of interpretation. E.g., footage of people dumping bodies into mass graves says nothing about how they died. Existence of a concentration camp in no way implies gas chambers as the means of murder on an industrial scale. Tattoos tell us nothing.

Oh, wait, now you’re talking about soap. I guess I’ve been had (and if I have not, then you are exhibit A in the suborning skepticism sweepstakes)? In any event, I think there are a couple of interesting points about OHN:

1. It would have been far more efficient to simply drown the victims. Just park the train cars full of victims in canals full of water for 20 minutes, done, no muss, no fuss. Poison gas infuses corpses, makes them dangerous, even deadly to handle for a substantial amount of time afterward. Building concentration camps is expensive, and stupid if you’re just going to kill the people living there.

2. Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, especially from people as ethnocentric and, er, morally flexible as Jews. I’ve read an awful lot of them, and many of them are manifestly absurd. The most common violation is how the eye-witnesses routinely attribute to themselves knowledge and certainty that they could never have had (they’re obviously retconning). E.g., a march was always a death march, starvation was always deliberate (and not, say, caused by food shortages), people going into a shower were always doomed to be gassed, etc.

3. There has been zero effort to forensically determine how the physical evidence lines up with the OHN. From the orthodox camp, that is; what little effort has been made, has all been done by revisionists. Millions of corpses leave tons of evidence. Even just the remains of cremation of millions of people adds up to tons of ash, bone fragments, etc. This stuff doesn’t just disappear. What with all the gnashing of teeth over “holocaust deniers,” you’d think there would be some effort from the orthodox camp to establish some of this forensically. But there’s been nothing. No search for remains, no ground-penetrating radar used to find mass graves, nothing.

I’m not a holocaust denier. I don’t know enough about the history to be so certain, and I determined years ago that I would have to devote my life to the subject, if I wanted to make any real contribution. So, I’m merely a holocaust skeptic. A holocaust agnostic. That is enough to get me burned at the stake, of course.

P.S., the birth analogy is weak. No one is challenging the narrative I received. No one is profiting from its continued acceptance. No one is using it as a moral lever in monstrous political schemes. If they were, I’d not be surprised at all to see it challenged. I certainly wouldn’t get my knickers all in a twist, if it were.

It would have been far more efficient to simply drown the victims. Just park the train cars full of victims in canals full of water for 20 minutes, done, no muss, no fuss. Building concentration camps is expensive, and stupid if you’re just going to kill the people living there

Drowning people in full public view is quite difficult. It take some doing. Meanwhile you start to panic people and they resist, including people who might be otherwise indifferent. If the goal is factory killing one must, like cattle, keep everyone calm until it's all too late. A train ride to Poland may have meant relocation for on lookers and eventual corpses alike rather than certain death.

And yes, building concentration camps is expensive and stupid, but you know what's even more expensive and stupid? Keeping them alive if you're determined they are no use to you.

Poison gas infuses corpses, makes them dangerous, even deadly to handle for a substantial amount of time afterward

There's no particular evidence for this. You can see relief workers attempting to hose down and otherwise wash off children exposed to one of the rather nasty gas chemicals around right after the Syrian gas attack without seemingly much fear for themselves. I've never heard this and have no particular reason to believe it.

Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, especially from people as ethnocentric and, er, morally flexible as Jews.

This is a problem, but remember there's at least 6-7 million non-Jews who would die in the Holocaust, as mentioned. That's the problem with Jew, Jew, Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust. The Germans killed all sorts of other people, not just Jews and they may have actually killed more Christians than Jews. Can we accept that Christians I've heard about dieing in the Holocaust, including a Catholic saint, was not an ethnocentric tale?

Even just the remains of cremation of millions of people adds up to tons of ash, bone fragments, etc. This stuff doesn’t just disappear.

Yes, it does just disappear. Fertilizer and soap. There's a war on and people to feed and clean. How do you track down the logical use of cremation remains? It's gone.

I’m not a holocaust denier.

Yeah, you are. And the problem is, you question if the Holocaust exists, you're question every single major event of the 20th century and of Western History. How I can believe Stalin killed those millions? Why would I believe the death numbers from Civil War? How do know we went to the Moon? You're not applying that sort of skepticism to any other historical event and rightly so, because you'd go mad. There's no reason to believe anyone if you insist on the type of evidence for other historical events as you're doing for the Holocaust.

If you're serious about countering Holocaust narrative, try Holodomor. Try the Armenian genocide. The Jews are as fallen as the rest of humanity. There's no need to call into question historical events to completely wipe out "Jew as victim" narrative. Jews, like every other ethnicity are sometimes the bug but just as often or more, the windshield. Just point that out and it's way more effective.

I really can’t emphasize #2 strongly enough. The term “fog of war” is an apt one. People in a war generally don’t know much at all about what’s going on, at the time. They’re lucky if they ever do. But in every single orthodox eye-witness account I’ve ever read, the storytellers know exactly what was going on, and why. Even when they shouldn’t. They set off my skeptic alarms left and right.

Read some of the accounts critically, and see for yourself. They’re mostly “everybody knows,” “it is known,” type stuff. Not credible at all. These are the bricks the orthodox narrative is made of.

Didn't the NYSlimes print Al Sharpton's garbage about the false Twana Brawley accusations as though the fraud were the truth? It was a horrible witch hunt against several White men

My first memory of the Slimes was an adulatory article about Castro right after he took over Cuba. He was going to create paradise in the Carribean. Didn't work out that way.

Going a little farther back, let’s not forget good ol’ Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage extolling the virtues of that progressive utopia, the USSR, and covering up the Holodomor as it was taking place. His picture, of course, still hangs in a place of honor at the NYT with their other Pulitzer Prize winners.

I also tend to have a serious problem with any version of history that I “must” believe, with repercussions for failure ranging from jail time in some countries (all in enlightened modern Europe, AFAIK), to firing and social exile in others. That alone is usually enough to make me into a skeptic. I’d call myself a holocaust agnostic, even if I wasn’t one.

Take every opportunity to mock, attack and belittle the New York Times and other MSM whenever anyone mentions it.
“I read in the New York Times yesterday that….”

Appropriate response: “You’re still reading that discredited propaganda? There are so many better and more reliable news sources.”
Make sure you have some ready in writing. Use brightly colored paper so people can find it quickly.

“You know, the New York Times quality has really slipped in the last few years. Look how they got Iraq wrong, how they failed to predict the mortgage meltdown and most recently, backing the loser Hillary Clinton and failing to cover how successful Trump was right up to the last second.”

Call MSM advertisers and tell them you will boycott their products because of where they are foolishly buying ads.

Only 60 days until shopping season starts at the beginning of February. Make your lists of what you need, what you want and what you should have. Spend your money in Trump’s presidency and starve Obama’s.

The New York Times is dead long ago, being replaced by The Jew York Times.

I forwarded this article to a left-leaning friend and your comment is the kind of crap that will turn him off to the article and the website immediately. Think about what reaches more people and what doesn’t.

I forwarded this article to a left-leaning friend and your comment is the kind of crap that will turn him off to the article and the website immediately. Think about what reaches more people and what doesn’t.

Bah. The truce between polite right and left is over, with the left breaking it first and a long time ago.

If James Damore was openly fired for writing the thoughtful, nunanced email he did, the leftists are going to need to decide not between Right and Left, but Good and Evil.

Yeah, the Jewish stuff is off putting, but it's time that we righties accept our side has warts and that others will need to accept the warts as they are. No apologies, no bleating with people to change their opinions because "What will people who despise us think?"

The problem with accusing the Ukrainians of having shot down MH-17 is found in the wreckage. The type of pellet that did the damage is not found in the version of the Buk missile in the possession of the Ukrainians. Only the newer version, owned only by the Russians, have the type of pellet that did the damage.

Russia shot down MH-17. Russian troops are known to be in eastern Ukraine operating heavy weapons. Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas and a lot of the artillery fire that has been aimed at the Ukrainians has come from Russian territory.

You've swallowed a load of Putinist propaganda.

Russian troops probably are in eastern Ukraine with heavy weaponry. And good for them, given the US and NATO encirclement, sanctions, and threats against Russia.

Answer honestly: if Russia or China put their troops right over the border in Mexico for “defensive training”, as we have done in countries neighboring Russia, how would you want the USA to react?

Every morning, I skim the headlines of the New Joke Times for my daily dose of humor. The only articles I bother clicking on these days - as with the BBC - appear in the Sports section. The recent profile on Kyrgios was amusing.- It is unfortunate that the NYT and especially, the BBC are still taken quite seriously in the developing world.

I wholeheartedly agree with the main argument of the NY Times having lost all vestiges of journalistic integrity and ethical standards. They have ceased to be anything more than a combination; mouthpiece, pr flak and investigative attack dogs for the extended Clinton crime family and their friends on the left.

That said, it's hard to see this author's work to not be his response to the Times's articles (which he includes here), which have criticized him.

Whether valid criticism or not, it obviously is the source of Johannes Wahlstrom 's venom and it's impossible to not wonder how much of his subsequent tirade against the Times is a direct result of that animus.

What he is saying is, as you acknowledge, true and accurate, and in no way misleading. How does his “animus” come into play?

By your logic, someone can point out instances of dishonesty, slander, exaggeration, and distortion by a media outlet UNLESS one of those instances personally targeted him?

It's amazing what roles foreigners play in our national life. We seem to lap it up.

A digression on remittances: If we imposed a hefty tax on them I bet we'd see a whole lot of self-deportation. Punitive taxation on our own citizens is perfectly OK, such as with cigarettes, so there's no moral objection to collecting punitive income, Medicare, and employment taxes on the back end.

Of course, the official position is that only Bureau of Prisons buses and RR cattle cars can be used to deport people, who must be rounded up Evian Gonzalez-style.

Love your comment.

How’s this for a bill too popular for even some Anti-American Party politicians to oppose:

impose a hefty tax on remittances abroad
AND
make noncitizens ineligible for the EITC
AND
cut federal income tax for all US Citizens

Thanks, RC. That would be a righteous bill. I guess even now we should be grateful that Hondurans, Argentinians, Saudis, and Zulus can't claim that EITC though Heaven knows there are simpletons who think that would be a great idea.

Yes, I was (apparently) banned from commenting on that site for suggesting that several of their bloggers (some regular contributors, some not) seemed to favor a certain religious denomination as Conservatism's official religion. Didn't seem all that controversial to me. Hats off to Ron Unz for not censoring comments.

Rod Dreher is a timid, officious, dangerously naive little faggot who will prattle on about meaningless religious doctrinal debates and wring his hands about Trump while we are dispossessed of our own country.

On the contrary, I have heard the exact opposite, although I cannot find the reference at the moment (i.e. very old model Buk, probably escaped from some Ukrainian hangar).

AFAIK, the US still hasn't delivered on the promises of having "proof" as made by Kerry. This alone stinks.

Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas

I guess we are really dealing with alternate realities here. This MAY have happened but if it did, Russia sure won't say.

Interestingly, NYT published a non-front-page article about the the Donbas in early 2015, where the journalist went looking for Russians but didn't find any anywhere.

Look, I take russia’s side entirely on the Donbass mess, but it’s foolish to say that there are no Russians there fighting and training because some journalist didn’t find any.

Did the journalist speak fluent Russian?

So well that he can tell the difference between a Russian accent and a Ukrainian-Russian accent? Almost every person in Ukraine speaks Russian as a native language, and everyone in the Donbass surely does, including those who identify as Ukrainian and don’t want to secede or join Russia.

My guess is that Russians are absolutely actively fighting and training fighters in Donbass, and they should be.

I’d just like them to give koenigsberg back to Germany, but that is a topic for another thread. And impossible, too, since the Germans are too pussified to even kept their own present tiny territory from Muslims and African savages.

The news media in the US, and probably the world, has evolved into a mouthpiece for social engineering, feudal peasant ignorance, crowd control, the tyranny of political correctness, ideological speculation and self-serving congratulatory adulation of globalist liberalism. Following the dictates of the financier oligarchy, they have managed to successfully dash their hierarchical brains against the modern technological imperative and its stepchild, the Internet and peer to peer lateral communication. Their ideologically propelled mischaracterizations of Hillary's chances while the rest of us had mouse click access to the raw data, made it apparent EVEN TO THEMSELVES, that they are as blind as a Daniel Quayle potatoe.

You seem not to know that he didn’t spell the word wrong. Both versions are acceptable.

Nice ignorant recycling of a rather stupid and childish lefty trope from the late 80s / early 90s.

Mohammad has no claim to God whatsoever. He is nothing more than an idealoligist, who started an idology based on subjugation of women and conqured adversaries. Kill or subjugate to conquer.

Religion, my ass.

Seconded. Islam is a an inherently violent, cruel, imperialist political movement — found by ruthless woman-hating mentally ill pedophile — that uses fear of God and rewards in the afterlife to motivate its slaves to go conquer and make more slaves.

How's this for a bill too popular for even some Anti-American Party politicians to oppose:

impose a hefty tax on remittances abroad
AND
make noncitizens ineligible for the EITC
AND
cut federal income tax for all US Citizens

Thanks, RC. That would be a righteous bill. I guess even now we should be grateful that Hondurans, Argentinians, Saudis, and Zulus can’t claim that EITC though Heaven knows there are simpletons who think that would be a great idea.

@Dato
“Interestingly, NYT published a non-front-page article about the the Donbas in early 2015, where the journalist went looking for Russians but didn’t find any anywhere.”

This is hilarious. He would have had to hide not to find any Russians. But, we are dealing with the NYT here.

@Radical center
“Russian troops probably are in eastern Ukraine with heavy weaponry. And good for them, given the US and NATO encirclement, sanctions, and threats against Russia.”

This is utterly irrelevant. NATO has not “encircled” Russia, nor is NATO a threat to Russia. It is ridiculous to swallow such assertions when it is Putin that has invaded Ukraine and Georgia, and has been rattling sabers on the borders of his neighbors.

I wonder why I would do such a dastardly thing. Perhaps because you do it all the time. What I’ve said has been widely published. Get out from under your flat rock and get the truth. It isn’t hard, but it does involve some effort that you seem unwilling to put forward.

By the by. It isn’t habitual. I do it only when I see it.

@canspeccy
“If you are going to make categorical assertions of an obscure fact, i.e., concerning the type of pellet that allegedly punctured the skin of MH-17,”

This has been published several times and the fact of the pellet damage being inconsistent with the older models of the missiles in Ukraine’s possession. It isn’t obscure.

I forwarded this article to a left-leaning friend and your comment is the kind of crap that will turn him off to the article and the website immediately. Think about what reaches more people and what doesn't.

I forwarded this article to a left-leaning friend and your comment is the kind of crap that will turn him off to the article and the website immediately. Think about what reaches more people and what doesn’t.

Bah. The truce between polite right and left is over, with the left breaking it first and a long time ago.

If James Damore was openly fired for writing the thoughtful, nunanced email he did, the leftists are going to need to decide not between Right and Left, but Good and Evil.

Yeah, the Jewish stuff is off putting, but it’s time that we righties accept our side has warts and that others will need to accept the warts as they are. No apologies, no bleating with people to change their opinions because “What will people who despise us think?”

“Impossible and laughable tales of 6mil deaths and gas chambers”? Dude, have you not been to any concentration camps? Have you not watched FOOTAGE of those same concentration camps dumping hundreds of bodies of it’s victims into mass graves? Or seen pictures of The Angel of Death’s work?! Turning frickin people into soap?! Or what about the hundreds of thousands of people still alive today (ALL AROUND THE WORLD) who could tell you their first hand experience of the camps, how many of their family members died and still show you their tattoo?! Not just Jews, but gays, gypsies and Christians were sent to these camps as well!

Beat, most of the problems with the orthodox holocaust narrative are problems of interpretation. E.g., footage of people dumping bodies into mass graves says nothing about how they died. Existence of a concentration camp in no way implies gas chambers as the means of murder on an industrial scale. Tattoos tell us nothing.

Oh, wait, now you're talking about soap. I guess I've been had (and if I have not, then you are exhibit A in the suborning skepticism sweepstakes)? In any event, I think there are a couple of interesting points about OHN:

1. It would have been far more efficient to simply drown the victims. Just park the train cars full of victims in canals full of water for 20 minutes, done, no muss, no fuss. Poison gas infuses corpses, makes them dangerous, even deadly to handle for a substantial amount of time afterward. Building concentration camps is expensive, and stupid if you're just going to kill the people living there.

2. Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, especially from people as ethnocentric and, er, morally flexible as Jews. I've read an awful lot of them, and many of them are manifestly absurd. The most common violation is how the eye-witnesses routinely attribute to themselves knowledge and certainty that they could never have had (they're obviously retconning). E.g., a march was always a death march, starvation was always deliberate (and not, say, caused by food shortages), people going into a shower were always doomed to be gassed, etc.

3. There has been zero effort to forensically determine how the physical evidence lines up with the OHN. From the orthodox camp, that is; what little effort has been made, has all been done by revisionists. Millions of corpses leave tons of evidence. Even just the remains of cremation of millions of people adds up to tons of ash, bone fragments, etc. This stuff doesn't just disappear. What with all the gnashing of teeth over "holocaust deniers," you'd think there would be some effort from the orthodox camp to establish some of this forensically. But there's been nothing. No search for remains, no ground-penetrating radar used to find mass graves, nothing.

I'm not a holocaust denier. I don't know enough about the history to be so certain, and I determined years ago that I would have to devote my life to the subject, if I wanted to make any real contribution. So, I'm merely a holocaust skeptic. A holocaust agnostic. That is enough to get me burned at the stake, of course.

P.S., the birth analogy is weak. No one is challenging the narrative I received. No one is profiting from its continued acceptance. No one is using it as a moral lever in monstrous political schemes. If they were, I'd not be surprised at all to see it challenged. I certainly wouldn't get my knickers all in a twist, if it were.

It would have been far more efficient to simply drown the victims. Just park the train cars full of victims in canals full of water for 20 minutes, done, no muss, no fuss. Building concentration camps is expensive, and stupid if you’re just going to kill the people living there

Drowning people in full public view is quite difficult. It take some doing. Meanwhile you start to panic people and they resist, including people who might be otherwise indifferent. If the goal is factory killing one must, like cattle, keep everyone calm until it’s all too late. A train ride to Poland may have meant relocation for on lookers and eventual corpses alike rather than certain death.

And yes, building concentration camps is expensive and stupid, but you know what’s even more expensive and stupid? Keeping them alive if you’re determined they are no use to you.

Poison gas infuses corpses, makes them dangerous, even deadly to handle for a substantial amount of time afterward

There’s no particular evidence for this. You can see relief workers attempting to hose down and otherwise wash off children exposed to one of the rather nasty gas chemicals around right after the Syrian gas attack without seemingly much fear for themselves. I’ve never heard this and have no particular reason to believe it.

Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, especially from people as ethnocentric and, er, morally flexible as Jews.

This is a problem, but remember there’s at least 6-7 million non-Jews who would die in the Holocaust, as mentioned. That’s the problem with Jew, Jew, Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust. The Germans killed all sorts of other people, not just Jews and they may have actually killed more Christians than Jews. Can we accept that Christians I’ve heard about dieing in the Holocaust, including a Catholic saint, was not an ethnocentric tale?

Even just the remains of cremation of millions of people adds up to tons of ash, bone fragments, etc. This stuff doesn’t just disappear.

Yes, it does just disappear. Fertilizer and soap. There’s a war on and people to feed and clean. How do you track down the logical use of cremation remains? It’s gone.

I’m not a holocaust denier.

Yeah, you are. And the problem is, you question if the Holocaust exists, you’re question every single major event of the 20th century and of Western History. How I can believe Stalin killed those millions? Why would I believe the death numbers from Civil War? How do know we went to the Moon? You’re not applying that sort of skepticism to any other historical event and rightly so, because you’d go mad. There’s no reason to believe anyone if you insist on the type of evidence for other historical events as you’re doing for the Holocaust.

If you’re serious about countering Holocaust narrative, try Holodomor. Try the Armenian genocide. The Jews are as fallen as the rest of humanity. There’s no need to call into question historical events to completely wipe out “Jew as victim” narrative. Jews, like every other ethnicity are sometimes the bug but just as often or more, the windshield. Just point that out and it’s way more effective.

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter